You might--or you might not--be surprised to learn that the California Teachers Association has spent more than $1 million to defeat Prop 8. Prop 8 clearly has nothing to do with teacher pay, benefits, or working conditions, so I don't think CTA should be involved in it at all. Of course, CTA didn't poll its membership about spending money on politics, either.
The "Yes on 8" campaign mentions in its advertising that schools would teach about (and promote) homosexuality if gay marriage remains legal, as happened in Massachusetts.
After the Mormon couple objected to having their children taught about same-sex marriage, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they had no right to advance notice of the instruction. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of their case.
What does California's Prop 8 have to do with education, though?
There's not a word about education in Proposition 8, but what public schools will be required to teach about same-sex marriage has emerged as the central issue in the campaign.Again, because of the Massachusetts example.
Why is CTA so invested in ensuring this proposition fails? Couldn't be a leftie bias, could it?
I sure would like to see a "wall of separation" between unions and state--both labor unions and personal unions.
10 comments:
Maybe. Let's watch gay porn together and see how bigoted you are.
Having said that, CTA is a LABOR union, not a human rights organization. Or, perhaps, they are really just a left-wing organization and will throw money at left-wing causes, whether or not they relate to member pay, benefits, and working conditions. And we're right back to where I said we were at the beginning.
As a conservative and sometime-substitute teacher in southern California, I can not figure out whatbusiness the teachers' union has in supporting the No on 8 position with so much money. I too suspect that it's their liberal agenda.
I actually don't have a problem with gay marriage even though I consider myself conservative and nearly always vote Republican. I guess I'm amused by a comment previously made by a candidate for the Texas Governorship: "I'm in favor of Gay Marriage. Why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us?!"
First, I too am pissed that my union dues are going to a cause completely unrelated to my job environment or benefits.
But . . . let's suppose, for a second, that kids were taught that marriage was a legal contract (and I use the word 'contract' loosely, since it can be voided at the whim of either party, not that i'm bitter)between two consenting adults. Which do you suppose would be the more likely outcome? a) that two little boys, previously not homosexual, decide to marry or b) there is a rising level of tolerance of homosexuals? I'm guessing "b", and that wouldn't be a problem for you unless -- well, you know.
Dan
Now Daniel, this post isn't arguing pro- or anti-homosexuality. It's arguing that CTA has no legitimate dog in this fight.
Minus five for off topic. =)
Darren, you are absolutely right. Prop 8 has nothing to do with the CTA or education or schools.
The problem, however, is that the "Yes on 8" campaign has been actively spreading the message that if 8 is defeated, then schools will be allowed to "teach" homosexuality in schools and "redefine" marriage when talking about it to children. According to a letter the "Yes on 8" campaign sent to the Board of Education, 96% of schools in California have adopted the voluntary sex education curriculum, and that curriculum includes language that requires teachers to "teach respect for marriage."
Whether that is true or not, I'll leave up to you to find out as I'm sure you know more about it than I do. However, try not to jump immediately to the conclusion that this is a leftie bias, just because it is from an organization you hate. If anything, the right struck first, fighting with the loaded topics of education, and wrongly, in my opinion. The left, and those that believe in equal rights (again, in my opinion), is responding, including the CTA.
And by the way, there is a not-so-fine line between being bigoted and being disgusted by gay porn. That is analogous to saying a straight man is a misogynist because he is disgusted by "Sex and the City" or "The Women" or "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants." Parts 1 and 2.
Off topic? Okay, I'll stand in the corner. Not a good enough transition, I guess. My point was that CTA shouldn't have a dog in the fight, and especially not a stupid dog.
The "Yes on 8" campaign has used teaching gay marriage in schools as their very scary outcome argument; the "No on 8" people (CTA) have countered with ads saying "Nuh -uh!". No one has addressed the issue of whether or not it matters, either way. In my mind, both sides are showing their homophobia -- one overtly, (Yes) and one in couched terms (No). My point is that not only should CTA not be taking out ads, but that the ads they are taking out are offensive and idiotic. If they were to take out an ad, I would hope that it would speak to the fairness aspect, rather than the fear of teaching about gay marriage.
Hope that clarifies.
Dan
Anonymous (2 comments above):
CTA was donating money to this campaign well before commercials ever hit the air, so they weren't "dragged" into this fight at the mention of schools.
Pay, benefits, and working conditions. That's what unions, especially unions like CTA that get their money via extortion, should be focusing on.
...and in the classroom, the focus should be on academic subjects, but the trajectory of the graph of academic achievement of California's schools over the last 40 years delivers that message far better than I can.
If the CTA has a cool million to give to defeat prop 8 (which has nothing to do with the teachers they are supposed to represent) then perhaps they don't need my support next time there are pay decreases or layoffs to deal with a budget problem. They can just get another million from the wealthy union! Right? And how can anyone think there won't be any pro-gay agenda in our schools when the teachers and superintendent are so actively in support of gay marriage. This kind of craziness can only happen here in Cal.
Hmmmm my last post didnt get through.. so I will try again..
I am not going into the pros and cons of gay marriage, I think you can guess where I stand on that, but I must bring up a matter of fact that you get wrong in your post.
Massachusetts schools do NOT "promote" homosexuality. Now, some stupid people at stupid websites (Worldnetdaily for example) might claim they do, but when you look at the facts, that becomes obviously false.
For example, a recent wingnutdaily headline stated that the Supreme Court said it was OK to teach kids to be gay. But then, when you look at the facts of the case, what happened was that a book was used in schools which described lots of different families. Amongst those families were single parent families, father/mother/children families, families of different religions, blended families, families of different ethnicities, extended families and horror of horrors; families with two parents of the same gender. To claim that this is promoting homosexuality is as stupid as claiming that it promotes Judaism. It is a simple FACT of life that there are families headed up by homosexuals. In their lifetime, most kids will come across such families. This book simply recognised that fact and stated it. There was no promotion of homosexuality, and there certainly was not teaching kids to be gay.
Post a Comment