The pivotal exchange in one of the lawsuits now challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage shows that the opponents of gay people's freedom to marry still can't give a real answer to the key question posed in yet another court by yet another judge: "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?"
The anti-gay forces' lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, replied, "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know ... I don't know." Mr. Cooper eventually told the judge that the government should be able to exclude gay couples from marriage in order "to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions."
But even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of equality for gay people, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: "What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
The reason smart lawyers like Mr. Cooper don't give a better answer to why marriage discrimination should be allowed to continue is that there isn't one.
Evan Wolfson
Executive Director
Freedom to Marry
New York, Oct. 27, 2009
With the election just days away (unless you are one of the thousands that have voted either early or using an absentee ballot), it is expected that the campaigns for the first four ballot questions will be rolling out new ads.
On Question 1, both the Yes and NO campaigns have done so.
The NO on 1 campaign continues along the theme that is the essence of their campaign - that ALL families in Maine ought to be treated equally and with dignity:
On the Yes side, it seems that their departure from the fear mongering based on lies and omissions was short lived, as with their new ad is is more of the same: teh gays are going to push our kids to.....exactly what is never really explained. Better not to do so, I suppose - the unknown is always more scary - just ask Stephen King.
Of course, if "gay marriage" is already being "taught in schools," one really has to wonder what all the fuss about it is:
The WMTW/Portland Press Herald debate on question 1 today had some really revealing moments. None so much as the reaction of each side to the question of what happens should they lose on Nov. 3rd. Brian Souchet's is a cold statement of fact about policy. Mary Bonauto's is about real people's lives. I think we see which side is fighting for something that actually impacts the lives of committed couples and their children.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Mormon front group form New Jersey that is bankrolling the Yes on 1 campaign, filed suit in the Federal District Court of Maine. NOM was joined by American Principles in Action (APIA), as was noted yesterday.
NOM and APIA were seeking a temporary injunction of a decision by the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate NOM to determine whether that group qualified, under Maine law, as a PAC or BQC; APIA joined the complaint since it might affect their intentions to run advertisements in support of Yes on 1 (see the link above for the actual ads).
Today Justice D. Brock Hornby submitted his ruling (pdf warning) on the complaint:
Under Maine law, any person or entity that solicits and receives contributions or makes expenditures over $5,000 "for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question" must register and file reports with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Maine's November ballot asks Maine voters to decide whether to veto a recent Maine statute that permits gay marriage. The plaintiffs here [NOM and APIA] are two nonprofit corporations that operate nationwide. One describes itself as "dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage," and says that it has been receiving contributions connected in part to the Maine November election. The other says that it is "dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty," and that it proposes to make expenditures in connection with television commercials about the Maine ballot question. State election officials recently have begun an investigation of one of the two plaintiff nonprofits to determine whether it has illegally failed to register and report. As a result, the plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit against a variety of state officials, asking me to declare that the First Amendment makes the Maine registration and reporting statute unconstitutional. They have asked for the emergency relief of a temporary restraining order against enforcement because the election is imminent, and they wish to make solicitations and expenditures that exceed the $5,000 threshold without registering or reporting. I conducted an expedited hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009.
The critical question on a request for a temporary restraining order is the likelihood of success on the merits. Notably for First Amendment purposes, the challenged Maine statute does not limit contributions or expenditures in connection with ballot initiatives. Instead, it requires that they be reported when they exceed a certain threshold. Although these requirements impose some burden on the plaintiffs in pursuing their First Amendment rights of association and speech, Maine has a very strong interest in providing its voters with information about the source of the money that funds the campaign on either side of a ballot issue. To achieve that goal, it imposes only a minimal burden on persons or entities that contribute money or make expenditures. I conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the Maine statute violates the First Amendment. I therefore DENY the motion for a temporary restraining order.1 The case will proceed in the ordinary course.
It should be noted that the State is not restricting how much money NOM or APIA wish to spend on trying to influence how Mainers will vote on Question 1 - the State is simply asserting that if they spend over a certain limit, then they must file as a PAC or BQC, and so report to the State - that is you and me - their source of funding.
As should be clear, Maine law needs to be looked at in the next coming months to make sure that reporting requirements are made more strict, and that such requirements comply with the Constitution. But Maine must no longer be seen as a state where monied interests can buy ballot initiatives.
Bolstered by the ruling, Maine's attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week's vote on Question 1.
"We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully," said Attorney General Janet Mills. "The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer.
"I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?"
The National Organization for Marriage, a Virginia-based nonprofit corporation, has contributed about $1.6 million to the political action committee Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the fight to repeal the same-sex marriage law. That's more than half the total raised for the campaign so far.
Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the Yes on 1 campaign that would veto Maine's law allowing same-sex couples to marry, has a new TV ad out today:
The most obvious thing to note is that S4MM seems to have abandoned the theme of its other ads, that is that somehow allowing LD 1020 to become law will turn schools into incubators of homosexuality or something. Evidently it wasn't just the public polls that were showing the Yes campaign sinking like a anchor, but their internal polls as well.
So, the new line is, "We want to be tolerant of gays." Gone is the fear mongering, replaced with the more reasonable sounding support for civil unions or domestic partnerships for lesbians and gays. The ad even shows a screenshot from the Maine Department of Human Services website that describes the Domestic Partner Registry, which you can see in the embed.
The page cited can be found here. By clicking through the "Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partner Registry" button you'll find, as you would expect, all the info you'll want to know, including this interesting statement:
Yes, it seems that despite what the Yes on 1 campaign claims, the State of Maine makes it clear that a "registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage." Civil unions or domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, and do not provide all the rights and protections (and obligations) that marriage does.
And it is best to re-emphasize that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not "dismantle traditional marriage," or "obliterate" it as Marc Mutty stated in a recent email.
My wife and I have been married for nine years now, and after this "people's" veto is defeated, we look forward to celebrating our tenth.
If you are married, what anniversary will you be celebrating after 3 November?
Like a receding tide (and utterly as predictable), the advertisements and claims made by Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) have become ever more outrageous as Election Day draws closer. What began as a campaign to defend "traditional marriage" evolved to a fear mongering, using children and schools.
The same playbook that was used in 2008 in California is being used here in Maine, which is again not surprising, in that the same public relations firm that ran the campaign against same-sex marriage out west is doing so here.
That playbook is paid for by one major funder as well, in this case the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM has given so much money to the Yes on 1 campaign that it is being investigate by the Maine Ethics Commission to see if qualifies as a PAC.
NOM filed a complaint in Federal Court in Bangor last Wednesday which you can read here (pdf warning, h/t Right Wing Watch). NOM is joined by American Principles In Action (APIA) in the suit, which is explained on page 11 of the complaint:
45. Plaintiff APIA is a nonprofit 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty.
46. APIA does not have as its major purpose the promotion or defeat of any Maine referendum or ballot question.
47. APIA intends to produce a 30 second video entitled "Bigot" relating to same-sex marriage in Maine and place it on its website.
The script for the ad is as follows:
Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?
Mother: What?
Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.
Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly--but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn't make me a bigot.
Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?
Mother: Did you learn that at school too?
Girl nods
VO: Think that gay marriage won't affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic
48. APIA also intends to produce a 30 second video entitled "The New Curriculum" relating to same-sex marriage in Maine and place it on its website. The script for the ad is as follows:
School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter--as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.):
No, we're very proud of the new curriculum. It's all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.
Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we're looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy's hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, "Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb"
Reporter (VO): Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?
School Admin (VO): Sure, we've had a few complaints, but there's not much parents can do. It's the law, after all.
VO: Think gay marriage won't affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic
49. APIA estimates that the total cost of producing "Bigot" and "The New Curriculum" and placing them on its website is approximately $3,000.
Read through that second ad again. You know and I know that counseling about sexuality, or sex for that matter, is not given to Kindergarteners. The set up is every parent's nightmare, except, of course, one that has nothing to do with reality. Portraying a school counselor as a sexual predator ironically uses the sex scandals that have plagued the Catholic Church in an attempt to lend some credibility to the ad.
But let me be clear: elementary schools do not teach sex education to their students in Maine. Elementary school counselors do not counsel children about sexuality or sexual orientation.
I've been asked to clarify the above paragraph: what many of us would consider sex ed (that is, hygene, contraception, etc.) is not taught in K-5 classes in Maine. However, "Family Life Education" is taught (anatomy, what constitutes improper touching, etc.), in a way that is age appropriate. This is more done in regards to the safety of the children instead of personal awareness.--GW
And further - allowing same-sex couples to marry, the law that the Yes on 1 campaign is trying to veto, has nothing to do with what is currently taught in Maine schools, or what will be taught in the future.
If you have been wondering just how low S4MM, its head Marc Mutty, Bishop Richard Malone, and everyone associated with the Yes on 1 campaign are willing to go, the two ads above should give you some idea.
And that they base their argument on moral grounds even makes them more despicable.
On their website, Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) has this nugget:
The People's Veto of Gay Marriage - Question 1 - needs your financial contribution. Your support will help us stand up to the vast network of wealthy homosexuals with seemingly unlimited resources from places like Hollywood, New York and Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.'s largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization has already pledged to spend as much as $5 million to try to defeat us.
And no one group has donated even $1.6 million, let alone $5 million, to the NO on 1 campaign. But these sorts of facts never seem to bother the morals of those behind the Yes campaign.
This originally appeared in the South Florida Blade, and is posted here with permission from the author - thank you Danielle
Uncovering secrets in Maine
Anti-gay group rolls out scare tactics as referendum nears
ON OCT. 1, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices met to determine if a complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would be investigated. In his complaint, Karger claimed that NOM violated campaign reporting requirements and that the group was actively participating in money laundering. Despite the evidence he submitted, which included NOM emails pertaining to fundraising specifically for Maine while alluding to donor anonymity, the commission's staff recommended that no investigation be conducted due to lack of supporting evidence.
NOM had failed to disclose even its required IRS 990 filings to the public so it is not surprising that the evidence Karger possessed was limited. In my last Blade column published Sept. 18 entitled, "Follow the money: Why the federal gov't must investigate NOM's financial practices," I detailed how the group has habitually hidden and revised its records. Uncovering NOM's secrets has been the focus of my work for many months and as the title of my last column implies, I do believe an investigation into the group is warranted.
So I flew to Maine specifically to attend this hearing but due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed the first portion of the proceedings. I arrived just in time to hear the testimony of NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown, and a member of his legal team, Barry Bostrom.
Both Bostrom and Brown lavished praise on the staff and the Commission for their professionalism. They insinuated that the entire proceeding was a waste of everyone's time and it was obvious that Brown had thought he had already won. At that point, most of us in the audience believed NOM had won as well - it is rare that a Commission overrules a staff recommendation.
Then Brown made an egregious error, stating: "Mr. Karger refers to the fact that we refused to disclose our financial records ... this is simply not the case. We have given our 990s to journalists. They are now publicly available - they're available on our web site and we did that because we got so many calls and people showing up at the office asking for them that it became quite difficult to work."
Apparently, Brown had no idea I had entered the room. If he had, perhaps he would have reconsidered that statement because I am one of only two journalists who showed up at NOM's office requesting 990s - I know this because Brown told me so in person when I interviewed him on Sept. 1. (The other was the Blade's Lou Chibbaro Jr.)
It's been anticipated that the Mormon front group National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would contribute more to Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the Yes on 1 campaign.
I'm just surprised that they gave moneybefore today, the last day that contributions have to be reported until after the election.
But like the other Mormon groups did last summer in California, they have ponied up some serious cash:
Nearly one and a quarter million dollars, contributed to the "people's" veto. Or, about 90% of the total contributed over the last two weeks came from two religious groups.
And NOM, all by itself, has so far contributed 64% of all contributions S4MM ha received.
One of the pages of the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign is to play the victim, and they will create an opportunity in which to do so if need be.
Yesterday, this post went up on the S4MM facebook page:
Camden Schools update: No on 1 is not speaking at Camden High school, It was proposed as an after school activity but cancelled [sic]. There was a significant call volume of concerned patents/citizens. Please let people know so that the school is not further overwhelmed with calls. Thanks.
I happen to know some folks at SAD 28, and contacted them about this. The principal of Camden Hills Regional High School (CHRHS), Dr. Nick Ithomitis, sent this letter to parents of students there:
Hello Parents,
Today, you may have heard concerns about our Diversity Coalition Club hosting a meeting to get more informed about Question One on this year's Nov ballot. Unfortunately, the entire situation has been blown way out of proportion. It all started this morning on a state wide talk show when a caller called in to say that CHRHS was holding an assembly for all our students to hear a speaker explain why "to vote no on question one." This misinformation created quite a stir. Here are the facts:
We do have a Diversity Coalition Club; approved by the CSD School Board. The club's goal is to foster an understanding and respect among all people, regardless of color, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic background, county or origin, gender, or sexual identity. As a school sponsored club, the students and advisors have the right to hold meetings after school hours on school property. In addition, they have the right to invite outside speakers to their meetings, as long as the speakers do not pose substantial disruptions to the school or promote anything that is illegal.
In this case, the club attempted to find speakers who would present both sides of the issue on question one. The meeting was to be held after school and was voluntary. The one speaker who agreed to meet with the club posed no substantial disruption to the school nor was s/he promoting anything illegal. Therefore, the kids and advisors did nothing wrong.
In fact, to be honest, I applaud the students for wanting to find out more about what is happening in our state. I hope you agree that we want our kids to be more involved in political issues, and we want them to gather information so they can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, when this was first reported, the media did not have all the facts. Therefore, the initial reports were distorted and inaccurate.
At this time, the original meeting has been postponed. The Club wants to make sure they have time to get a speaker from both sides of the issue.
I hope this note clarifies things. I would be happy to speak to you if you have further questions.
What is not clear from Dr. Ithomitis letter is the circumstances that led the club to cancel the event, and so I called his office to verify what I had been told: that the Diversity Club had asked a representative to speak from both the Yes and No on 1 campaigns, but that only the speaker in support of No on 1 was available to make the date and time in question.
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 hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff. -- Ambrose Bierce
In a way, one has to feel for Marc Mutty. He is the chairman for Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group opposed to same-sex marriage, but only because, as he explained to the WaPo:
he agreed to lead the opposition campaign "because my boss told me to."
His boss is Bishop Richard Malone, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine).
S4MM hired Schubert/Flynn, the PR firm that was behind the success of Prop 8 in California in 2008, to head the campaign here, and they have used the same tactics - in some cases the exact same ads - as they did out West.
Except that this time supporters of equal marriage were prepared, and the news media has been pretty good at investigating the egregious behavior of the Yes side.
Marc Mutty, a spokesman for the Yes on 1/Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, says the other side is missing the point. "We understand that schools will not be mandated to provide one curriculum or another, but neither will they be discouraged or will they be unable to provide the kind of curriculum they could so choose that well could include teaching about same-sex marriage."
Mutty contends that if same-sex marriage is upheld, then it makes sense that teacher would bring up same-sex relationships in the context of a discussion on marriage - which he says is not OK with some parents. "We have never said that schools will be mandated -- or actually perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that inadvertently."
Never? The S4MM campaign has "inadvertently" led people to believe that "schools will be mandated" to teach about "homosexual marriage?" Whatever "teaching homosexual marriage" actually means, it is scary to the target audience of the S4MM ads.
Scary enough that the Yes campaign was willing to lie about it in order to convince them to vote against allowing same-sex marriage.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the construct of lies collapsed - I just thought it would happen after the election, not two weeks before it.
The NO on 1 campaign has a new ad out, one that directly addresses the tactic of fear being used by opponents of equal marriage:
Fear. That is all the opponents have. Fear that allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry will mean that "homosexual marriage" will be taught in schools, which is code for "your children will be turned into gay monsters by their teachers."
As part of its campaign in support of the Question 1 ballot initiative, Stand for Marriage Maine has aired several television ads claiming that unless the law is repealed, same-sex marriage could be taught in schools.
Gendron and Maine education officials have said that the law will have no impact on curriculum decisions. While Stand for Marriage Maine has defended the ads as raising legitimate questions, the campaign to defend Maine's same-sex marriage law has accused the opposition of employing distortion and scare tactics to sway public opinion.
But in response to continuing questions from the media and the public, Gendron sent a letter to Attorney General Janet Mills on Wednesday asking for an analysis of the law and any legal ramifications of a Massachusetts court decision referenced in the ads.
"The commissioner felt it would be helpful to put this issue to rest," education department spokesman David Connerty-Marin said Wednesday night.
Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) could have requested that the AG determine the impact of LD 1020 on the public schools here, by why do that when it's easier (and less risky to their argument), to spread rumors that it will? Bob Emrich, one of the founders of S4MM, let's it be known just how much they want to obfuscate the issue:
"Commissioner Gendron asking Attorney General Mills for an unbiased opinion on Question 1 smacks of a political stunt," Emrich said. "Hopefully, Attorney General Mills will not allow her department to be misused in such a manner."
Perhaps he will ask the attorney general from a state more sympathetic to his cause for an opinion on Maine law.
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.
It is clear that opponents of equal marriage in Maine only have one argument to offer in support of the people's veto. Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) will spend the next four weeks trying to scare Mainers into thinking that should lesbians and gays be allowed to marry, the curriculum in our schools would somehow change:
Robert Skutch, author of Who's in a Family, was interviewed on Here & Now on WBUR in Boston (not NPR), during the controversy brought forth by David Parker and the Robin and Robb Wirthlin. You can listen to the entire interview below.
The statement used in the ad by S4MM, "The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject of the book into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced there is another way of looking at life." Taken out of context, one can see how this may seem like "indoctrination." But it's not of course, as Skutch explains later in the interview:
It would be really nice if children were not subjected to the - I don't want to use the word bigotry, but I'll say it anyway - of their parents and older people. Children are not born bigoted. Children are not born fearful. As it says in the song from South Pacific, "You gotta be carefully taught."
It turns out that Don Mendell teaches at the same school, Nokomis High, that Sherri Gould does - whom Mendell describes in the ad as a "gay activist." Good as You has more on Mendell; from it:
Donald Mendell is not just a layman who has a kid in this high school, like "Yes on 1" makes it sound. Instead, Donald Mendell is actually a GUIDANCE COUNSELOR/SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER at Newport/Maine's Nokomis High School! Yes, that's right -- he's a public school employee who has a responsibility to look after the welfare of ALL children. One would also think that he has a responsibility to handle whatever internal gruff he might have with his place of employment in a private, off-record manner (esp. in a role like guidance counseling, which revolves around trust). But instead, he has let his feelings known in an extremely public way. And not just this one time either. There's also this 5/2 letter in which he warns "thinking folks" of the "age-old ruse" of comparing homosexuality to race. There's also this 1/22 letter warning of the "myriad of ramifications" that will supposedly accompany marriage equality. Then there's this 1/4 web comment in which he intimates that marriage for gay couples will "ridicule tradition and belief in natural law." And in perhaps his most hostile missive, he used a 12/01/08 letter go after "a change that strikes to the heart of the Sacraments," denying that same-sex marriage is something that "our Lord would support." His engagement against our engagements has been going on for some time (with a really unfortunate ring attached to it).
Now, to be fair and transparent: Don's colleague at Nokomis Regional High, Sherri Gould, has also injected herself in the marriage debate, taking part in a "No on 1" campaign ad. But let's not pretend like there's no difference between appearing on TV to talk about "respect and Maine values (the message that Ms. Gould chose to convey) and appearing in public newspapers to attack gay "normalcy" (which is essentially what Mr. Mendell has chosen to do). Ms. Gould's comments should not make anyone, from the most out and proud gay kid to the most faith-entrenched Christian student, in any way wary of visiting her office. But we really can't say the same about Mr. Mendell's words! Plus, "No on 1" fully identified Ms. Gould as a public school employee. "Yes on 1," on the other hand, has positioned Mr. Mendell as a mere parent of a local kid. That failure to accurately disclose should raise anyone's eyebrows.
Mendell also got off this blast in the Morning Sentinel 25 January:
Relativism is alive and well at the Sentinel. Hey, don't be hypocritical, make a stand for incest, too. Why shouldn't brothers marry?
It is of interest that Mendell is shown speaking in a classroom, even though he is not a teacher. Good as You is correct to wonder if Mendell is capable of offering proper guidance to the students that come to him for advice - he is, by appearances, an older man that should be able to draw on life's experiences, not simply the dogma of his religious beliefs.
Will Mainers fall for these simple scare tactics of S4MM, and their media consultant, Frank Schubert, fresh from his work on Prop 8 in California?
I received an email from the Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) campaign, and it reads (in part):
9 Higgins Street in Augusta is the home of the Maine Republican Party, and when I called the number listed, I was told that it is the only office located at that address.
Later I had a brief conversation with Charlie Webster, Chair of the Maine GOP, and he told me that they often let individuals come in to use their telephones to call about issues like TABOR, the excise tax repeal, and Question 1. The Maine Republican Party is full of activists, he said, just like the Democrats, and he'd be happy to allow members of the Log Cabin Club come in an use their phones to call in regards to NO on 1.
He was not aware that S4MM was actively recruiting volunteers, and was aware that this puts the Maine GOP in a spot regarding whether they are being paid for use of the offices and telephones.
Webster may send me a written statement later this evening when he has a chance.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an