Do you live in a "gay state"?

[Syriusly]

You free to beleive whatever you ever wish. I've had many conversations on this topic with people I've disgareed with and in many cases we have argeed to disagree in a civil fashion. You choose to be an insufferable ass and then all get bent out of shape when folks throw it back at you. Cry me a river.

I don't need you to tell me that. I already know.

You choose to be a faggot supporter and get all bent out of shape if someone doesn't agree with you.

I rarely get bent out of shape and when I do it is never over the opinions of some internet random such as yourself. Face it, you're just not that important in the lives of gay people.

Since a faggot carries ZERO worth, it's easy to count more than any of them.

The opinions of vulgar bigots such as yourself do not carry much weight anymore. Every time you post one of your mean-spirited comment you alienate they very people you wish to sway to your side. Whether you know it or not you are doing a great service to the gay rights community.

What makes you think I want a bunch of faggots on my side?

I think I found a photo of you

 

[initforme]

Gay marriage is of zero threat to anything yet some are scared of it... It threatens nobody.

 

[Howey]

What are the gay rights in your home state?
What do think citizens about this situation?
Here is a short review:
Gay rights laws in America have evolved to allow — but in some cases ban — rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people on a range of issues, including marriage, hospital visitation, adoption, housing, employment and school bullying. The handling of gay rights issues vary by state and follow trends by region
35 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 15 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=004857

What will be our country in few years? Where is the line of freedom? Ask married couple of gays.

Umm...you might want to update that map.

 

[Zander]

Hmmm, separate water fountains...no thanks. If you don't like us using "marriage" change it to civil unions for everyone. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Oh, come now. It worked out so well before. What's the worst that could happen?

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

A marriage is whatever we say it is. Some cultures define marriage as being between one man and several women. Some allow for concubines and harems. Others don't recognize marriage formally at all. Regardless, marriage is a social construct invented for our convenience.

It means what we decide it means. And in 36 of 50 states, that definition includes one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Hmmm, separate water fountains...no thanks. If you don't like us using "marriage" change it to civil unions for everyone. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

Oh, come now. It worked out so well before. What's the worst that could happen?

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

Your religious opinion has no bearing on civil law. If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. Same water came out of both, right?

It's unconstitutional.

I'm not religious.

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, come now. It worked out so well before. What's the worst that could happen?

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

A marriage is whatever we say it is. Some cultures define marriage as being between one man and several women. Some allow for concubines and harems. Others don't recognize marriage formally at all. Regardless, marriage is a social construct invented for our convenience.

It means what we decide it means. And in 36 of 50 states, that definition includes one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Oh, come now. It worked out so well before. What's the worst that could happen?

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

Your religious opinion has no bearing on civil law. If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. Same water came out of both, right?

It's unconstitutional.

I'm not religious.

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

Marriage is our social construct. It can mean whatever we decide it means.

 

[Zander]

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

A marriage is whatever we say it is. Some cultures define marriage as being between one man and several women. Some allow for concubines and harems. Others don't recognize marriage formally at all. Regardless, marriage is a social construct invented for our convenience.

It means what we decide it means. And in 36 of 50 states, that definition includes one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

It's not separate but equal. They are different. So they have words that differentiate their different meanings. A "marriage" is between one man and one woman. A "civil union" is for others. There is nothing discriminatory about it. You don't call the color red, blue? Do you? Why not? They are both colors but they are different colors. ..... words have meanings.

Your religious opinion has no bearing on civil law. If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. Same water came out of both, right?

It's unconstitutional.

I'm not religious.

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

Marriage is our social construct. It can mean whatever we decide it means.

meh.........I disagree. The word "Marriage" has a meaning that is based upon thousands of years of history. No-one can decide it means something else on a whim.. of course someone or some group can decide to re-define the meaning of a word, but that doesn't mean it will (or should) be accepted.

 

[Skylar]

A marriage is whatever we say it is. Some cultures define marriage as being between one man and several women. Some allow for concubines and harems. Others don't recognize marriage formally at all. Regardless, marriage is a social construct invented for our convenience.

It means what we decide it means. And in 36 of 50 states, that definition includes one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Your religious opinion has no bearing on civil law. If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. Same water came out of both, right?

It's unconstitutional.

I'm not religious.

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

Marriage is our social construct. It can mean whatever we decide it means.

meh.........I disagree. The word "Marriage" has a meaning that is based upon thousands of years of history. No-one can decide it means something else on a whim.. of course someone or some group can decide to re-define the meaning of a word, but that doesn't mean it will (or should) be accepted.

So marriage always meant one man and one woman? Because even today, Muslims have a very different interpretation. With marriage including up to 4 women. And other definitions expanding it even further. And lets not get started on official concubines.

Marriage is a social construct that we use for convenience and organization. As such, it can be adapted to whatever convenience and organization we see fit.

 

[Zander]

I'm not religious.

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

Marriage is our social construct. It can mean whatever we decide it means.

meh.........I disagree. The word "Marriage" has a meaning that is based upon thousands of years of history. No-one can decide it means something else on a whim.. of course someone or some group can decide to re-define the meaning of a word, but that doesn't mean it will (or should) be accepted.

So marriage always meant one man and one woman? Because even today, Muslims have a very different interpretation. With marriage including up to 4 women. And other definitions expanding it even further. And lets not get started on official concubines.

Marriage is a social construct that we use for convenience and organization. As such, it can be adapted to whatever convenience and organization we see fit.

Not really.

Yes, Muslims have a differing view on marriage and allow for multiple wives. . But it still involves men and (multiple) women. Not men and men. Not women and women. Muslims view homosexuality as an abomination worthy of DEATH!! .

Bottom line is: Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexuals. Sorry if the reality of that is disturbing to you......

 

[Skylar]

Yes, Muslims have a differing view on marriage and allow for multiple wives. . But it still involves men and (multiple) women. Not men and men. Not women and women. Muslims view homosexuality as an abomination worthy of DEATH!! .

So its the exact same interpretation of marriage for thousands of years. Except when its completely different.

Bottom line is: Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexuals. Sorry if the reality of that is disturbing to you.....

Bottom line is....marriage is whatever we say it is. And in 36 of 50 states, it includes same sex unions. In 48 of 50 States, such unions are recognized as being as legally valid as heterosexual ones. Sorry if the reality of that is disturbing to you.....

Get used to the idea.

 

[OKTexas]

What are the gay rights in your home state?
What do think citizens about this situation?
Here is a short review:
Gay rights laws in America have evolved to allow — but in some cases ban — rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people on a range of issues, including marriage, hospital visitation, adoption, housing, employment and school bullying. The handling of gay rights issues vary by state and follow trends by region
35 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 15 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=004857

What will be our country in few years? Where is the line of freedom? Ask married couple of gays.

Where did you find that POS map? This is what it looks like right now: National Maps - MEUSA
The fags won and you lost kiddos.

Everything at this point is subject to change. If SCOTUS rules the way they did in Windsor less than two years ago, it will be left to the States to decide and most already have.

 

[Skylar]

What are the gay rights in your home state?
What do think citizens about this situation?
Here is a short review:
Gay rights laws in America have evolved to allow — but in some cases ban — rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people on a range of issues, including marriage, hospital visitation, adoption, housing, employment and school bullying. The handling of gay rights issues vary by state and follow trends by region
35 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 15 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=004857

What will be our country in few years? Where is the line of freedom? Ask married couple of gays.

Where did you find that POS map? This is what it looks like right now: National Maps - MEUSA
The fags won and you lost kiddos.

Everything at this point is subject to change. If SCOTUS rules the way they did in Windsor less than two years ago, it will be left to the States to decide and most already have.

Windsor was about federal law, not State. As Justice Roberts made ludicrously clear in his dissent, Windsor didn't address any issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans by the States:

The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.


Justice Roberts Dissenting, Windsor v US.

Worse, Windsor made it equally clear that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. And even cited the Loving decision as an example of such. With every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans doing so on the basis of such laws violating those constitutional guarantees.

And if the courts hear the 6th circuit appeal, they will be reviewing the exact same basis.

 

[OKTexas]

What are the gay rights in your home state?
What do think citizens about this situation?
Here is a short review:
Gay rights laws in America have evolved to allow — but in some cases ban — rights for gay, lesbian and transgender people on a range of issues, including marriage, hospital visitation, adoption, housing, employment and school bullying. The handling of gay rights issues vary by state and follow trends by region
35 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 15 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=004857

What will be our country in few years? Where is the line of freedom? Ask married couple of gays.

Where did you find that POS map? This is what it looks like right now: National Maps - MEUSA
The fags won and you lost kiddos.

Everything at this point is subject to change. If SCOTUS rules the way they did in Windsor less than two years ago, it will be left to the States to decide and most already have.

Windsor was about federal law, not State. As Justice Roberts made ludicrously clear in his dissent, Windsor didn't address any issue of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans by the States:

The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.


Justice Roberts Dissenting, Windsor v US.

Worse, Windsor made it equally clear that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees. And even cited the Loving decision as an example of such. With every lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans doing so on the basis of such laws violating those constitutional guarantees.

And if the courts hear the 6th circuit appeal, they will be reviewing the exact same basis.

It also said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable. In fact it's in the summary of the decision about a half dozen times.

BTW every lower court hasn't overturned bans. Care to try again?

 

[BluesLegend]

I live in a homosexual state but those people keep to themselves upstate, that suits me.

 

[Skylar]

It also said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable In fact it's in the summary of the decision about a half dozen times.

You may want to actually read the decision. Because you're missing some rather important parts:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US

See that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees part? You know, the part you completely missed. Notice the reference to Loving V. Virginia, where the USSC overturned state marriage laws that violated individual rights? If the States have unquestioning authority to set marriage policy, how then could the court have ever overturned such state laws, as they did in the Loving decision?

Hmmm......something tells me you may have missed something.

Now riddle me this: why is the court citing the fact that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees significant? Answer: because every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated the these constitutional guarantees.

Every. Single. Ruling.

And you ignored it entirely. I doubt the USSC will.

BTW every lower court hasn't overturned bans. Care to try again?

Which might have some relevance if I'd said that every lower court ruling overturned the bans. Instead, I said that every lower court ruling that overturned the bans did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees.

Its a nuanced, but significant distinction. Would you care to try again? And remember, the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And yet haven't refused cert to the 6th circuit court decision that such bans are constitutional. What does that tell you?

 

[OKTexas]

It also said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable In fact it's in the summary of the decision about a half dozen times.

You may want to actually read the decision. Because you're missing some rather important parts:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US

See that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees part? You know, the part you completely missed. Notice the reference to Loving V. Virginia, where the USSC overturned state marriage laws that violated individual rights? If the States have unquestioning authority to set marriage policy, how then could the court have ever overturned such state laws, as they did in the Loving decision?

Hmmm......something tells me you may have missed something.

Now riddle me this: why is the court citing the fact that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees significant? Answer: because every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated the these constitutional guarantees.

Every. Single. Ruling.

And you ignored it entirely. I doubt the USSC will.

BTW every lower court hasn't overturned bans. Care to try again?

Which might have some relevance if I'd said that every lower court ruling overturned the bans. Instead, I said that every lower court ruling that overturned the bans did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees.

Its a nuanced, but significant distinction. Would you care to try again? And remember, the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And yet haven't refused cert to the 6th circuit court decision that such bans are constitutional. What does that tell you?

It tells me SCOTUS is waiting on all the circuit courts to hear their cases, and deciding not to decide may preserve the status quo, but if the 5th circuit joins the 6th in upholding the bans I don't see any way the supremes won't take it up. BTW Loving only dealt with interracial marriage between a man and a woman and is moot in this matter because there is no discrimination in banning same sex marriage, men and women are treated equally.

 

[Skylar]

It tells me SCOTUS is waiting on all the circuit courts to hear their cases, and deciding not to decide may preserve the status quo, but if the 5th circuit joins the 6th in upholding the bans I don't see any way the supremes won't take it up.

Then why not simply deny cert on the 6th and wait for the 5th? If its waiting until all of the circuit districts have had their say, and has so far denied cert for the districts that have already 'voted', why not follow the exact same pattern with the 6th, deny cert, and wait for the next district to rule?

They've broken their pattern. And *only* for the case that affirms gay marriage bans.

My take is that the court doesn't want to rule on gay marriage. That it didn't want to create binding precedent on the matter despite the fact that a pretty clear majority supported overturning the bans (many of the denials of cert were done by a 7-2 majority....with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting). It seems that the court was hoping that lower courts would overturn such bans for it. The result in policy would be the same. But without the binding precedent eroding State authority.

I don't think the court cares what the 5th district rules, as the 6th's ruling clearly creates an inconsistency in the application of law nationally. And forces the issue to be addressed by the USSC. The reason I think the court is delaying the issuance of cert for the 6th circuit appeal is the outside chance that the full quorum of the 6th may overturn the ruling of 2 of the 3 justice panel.

I don't think its likely. But if the quorum overturns the panels decision, then the 5th circuit becomes relevant again. As the USSC would need 10 for 10 in order to get the ruling they believe the constitution supports without eroding state authority. If they have to rule, I'd say 5 to 4 is a safe bet. With 7 to 2 an unlikely but plausible possibility.

All that being said, they courts could deny cert on the 6th and throw my entire analysis on its ass. I don't consider it likely. But it could happen.

BTW Loving only dealt with interracial marriage between a man and a woman and is moot in this matter because there is no discrimination in banning same sex marriage, men and women are treated equally.

Its clearly not moot, as the court cited it explicitly as an example in the Windsor ruling. It demonstrated unquestioningly that rights trump powers in relation to the State's marriage laws. Take a long hard look at Kennedy's recognition of harm caused to gay couples and their children by the denial of the recognition of their marriages if you want a pretty solid indication of which way he'll lean if forced to rule on the topic.

 

[Seawytch]

Okay, then you simply anti gay bigoted opinion has no bearing on civil law.

If you don't want gays getting "married" then change it for everyone. Marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is exactly like having separate water fountains. It's unconstitutional.

Sorry to disappoint you, butt I'm not an anti-gay bigot.

For me, it's simple: words have meanings. Outside of that, I have no interest in the issue. Blue is a color that is distinctly different from Red, or Purple, or Green. That is why they have separate words to describe them. Two homosexuals who desire the legal protections afforded married couples should have the right to do so, but they do not have the right to re-define words in the process.

Marriage is our social construct. It can mean whatever we decide it means.

meh.........I disagree. The word "Marriage" has a meaning that is based upon thousands of years of history. No-one can decide it means something else on a whim.. of course someone or some group can decide to re-define the meaning of a word, but that doesn't mean it will (or should) be accepted.

So marriage always meant one man and one woman? Because even today, Muslims have a very different interpretation. With marriage including up to 4 women. And other definitions expanding it even further. And lets not get started on official concubines.

Marriage is a social construct that we use for convenience and organization. As such, it can be adapted to whatever convenience and organization we see fit.

Not really.

Yes, Muslims have a differing view on marriage and allow for multiple wives. . But it still involves men and (multiple) women. Not men and men. Not women and women. Muslims view homosexuality as an abomination worthy of DEATH!! .

Bottom line is: Heterosexual relationships are different than homosexuals. Sorry if the reality of that is disturbing to you......

Fortunately for gays that don't want to be the 2nd class citizens you'd like them to be, the law disagrees with your opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

It also said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable In fact it's in the summary of the decision about a half dozen times.

You may want to actually read the decision. Because you're missing some rather important parts:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US

See that 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees part? You know, the part you completely missed. Notice the reference to Loving V. Virginia, where the USSC overturned state marriage laws that violated individual rights? If the States have unquestioning authority to set marriage policy, how then could the court have ever overturned such state laws, as they did in the Loving decision?

Hmmm......something tells me you may have missed something.

Now riddle me this: why is the court citing the fact that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees significant? Answer: because every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated the these constitutional guarantees.

Every. Single. Ruling.

And you ignored it entirely. I doubt the USSC will.

BTW every lower court hasn't overturned bans. Care to try again?

Which might have some relevance if I'd said that every lower court ruling overturned the bans. Instead, I said that every lower court ruling that overturned the bans did so on the basis that such bans violated constitutional guarantees.

Its a nuanced, but significant distinction. Would you care to try again? And remember, the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. Without exception.

And yet haven't refused cert to the 6th circuit court decision that such bans are constitutional. What does that tell you?

. BTW Loving only dealt with interracial marriage between a man and a woman and is moot in this matter because there is no discrimination in banning same sex marriage, men and women are treated equally.

You miss the point- the Court referenced Loving as an example how State's laws are still subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You claimed that Windsor said that States rights to set marriage policies within their State is unquestionable - but the court very clearly did say that those States rights are not only questionable- it provided an example of one specific case where the court overturned State marriage laws. There are at least two more examples of the Supreme Court overturning State marriage laws.

No one knows how the Supreme Court will rule- but Windsor doesn't say what you want it to say- and doesn't help your cause at all.

What Windsor said is that Federal government cannot deny marriages that States allow.

 

[Treeshepherd]

To graduate HS, you have to write an essay on a great historical homosexual you admire..

Feel free to substantiate that.

As the father of a student in High School right now- in San Francisco- oddly enough my child has never heard of this.

My bad. It was supposed to go into effect in 2012. There was apparently a delay. It should be implemented this year. My daughter is class of 2016.

California Board Of Education Moves To Comply With Gay History Law CBS San Francisco

"California education officials took the first step this week toward complying with a law that requires public schools to include prominent gay people and gay rights’ milestones in the curriculum, "

"It is notable that the law does not include an opt-out option for parents who do not wish to have their children learn about LGBT topics in school."- wiki

As part of the gay curriculum, you'll have to write a report or essay. That's a given. The Fair Education Act forbids pejorative or negative portrayals of gay culture. It follows then that you'll be required to write something that complements the contributions of a gay person or historical event.

Okay- so you were engaging in hyperbole. There is no requirement- now or in the future- requiring a child

to write an essay on a great historical homosexual you admire

See you could have just said that accurately that California schools will be required to teach about prominent gay people and gay rights milestones- that would be accurate. But you extrapolated and created a requirement that does not and will not exist.

High School students learn about various subjects- even if they were asked to write an essay on a famous gay person- it would never be a requirement for graduation- at most it would be a single paper grade, in one grading period, which would be part of a semester, which would be part of an entire course.

Which is why I called BS on your claim.

You can oppose letting teaching children to treat LGBT persons equally- but you can do so without mis-stating the facts.

Sometimes I say things off the top of my head. Sometimes I paint with a broad brush, or use hyperbole. This is a messageboard, and nobody reads a comprehensive 5,000 word post. In this case, I'll admit that I was wrong in the sense that you won't be denied a diploma solely on the basis of failing the gay history requirement that goes into effect this year.
The gay requirements were supposed to go into effect in 2012, and I hadn't heard that they'd been delayed.

We really don't know how this is going to play out. I'm sure students will have to write something as part of the gay history mandate. You cannot opt out, and the new rules forbid anyone from disparaging the gay lifestyle. In my opinion, teaching tolerance of the gay lifestyle is not going to be satisfactory to the LGBT lobby. They're banging the drum of full and absolute public acceptance. The new curriculum, it seems, will go beyond teaching anti-discrimination. It seems that it will mandate unqualified unquestioned approval.

Will a student be allowed to write that the gay lifestyle is factually more dangerous than the hetero lifestyle, as gay men contract 60% of the HIV cases in the USA? Will a student be allowed to point out that many 'gays' are simply struggling with an identity crisis, and find a sense of belonging in the LGBT community? Or, is the viewpoint going to be hammered home that gays are born with the gay gene, and therefore their struggle rises to the level of historical racial struggles in America.

Will a student get a passing grade if he points out that Gandhi was a vocal critic of homosexuality? Will a student be able to make the case that since black clergy are predominantly critical of the gay lifestyle, it's unlikely that MLK would be on board with new constitutional protections for gays?
Black Pastors Oppose Gay Marriage Warn Obama We Will Not Stand With You CNS News

Like I said, California also has the new bathroom and sports participation rules where you may choose the toilet or team that suits your self-proclaimed 'gender identity', regardless of whether you have a penis or a vagina.

The question was asked, do I live in a gay state? I think I answered the question without passing any harsh judgement.

 

[Syriusly]

To graduate HS, you have to write an essay on a great historical homosexual you admire..

Feel free to substantiate that.

As the father of a student in High School right now- in San Francisco- oddly enough my child has never heard of this.

My bad. It was supposed to go into effect in 2012. There was apparently a delay. It should be implemented this year. My daughter is class of 2016.

California Board Of Education Moves To Comply With Gay History Law CBS San Francisco

"California education officials took the first step this week toward complying with a law that requires public schools to include prominent gay people and gay rights’ milestones in the curriculum, "

"It is notable that the law does not include an opt-out option for parents who do not wish to have their children learn about LGBT topics in school."- wiki

As part of the gay curriculum, you'll have to write a report or essay. That's a given. The Fair Education Act forbids pejorative or negative portrayals of gay culture. It follows then that you'll be required to write something that complements the contributions of a gay person or historical event.

Okay- so you were engaging in hyperbole. There is no requirement- now or in the future- requiring a child

to write an essay on a great historical homosexual you admire

See you could have just said that accurately that California schools will be required to teach about prominent gay people and gay rights milestones- that would be accurate. But you extrapolated and created a requirement that does not and will not exist.

High School students learn about various subjects- even if they were asked to write an essay on a famous gay person- it would never be a requirement for graduation- at most it would be a single paper grade, in one grading period, which would be part of a semester, which would be part of an entire course.

Which is why I called BS on your claim.

You can oppose letting teaching children to treat LGBT persons equally- but you can do so without mis-stating the facts.

Sometimes I say things off the top of my head. Sometimes I paint with a broad brush, or use hyperbole. This is a messageboard, and nobody reads a comprehensive 5,000 word post. In this case, I'll admit that I was wrong in the sense that you won't be denied a diploma solely on the basis of failing the gay history requirement that goes into effect this year.
The gay requirements were supposed to go into effect in 2012, and I hadn't heard that they'd been delayed.

We really don't know how this is going to play out. I'm sure students will have to write something as part of the gay history mandate. You cannot opt out, and the new rules forbid anyone from disparaging the gay lifestyle. In my opinion, teaching tolerance of the gay lifestyle is not going to be satisfactory to the LGBT lobby. They're banging the drum of full and absolute public acceptance. The new curriculum, it seems, will go beyond teaching anti-discrimination. It seems that it will mandate unqualified unquestioned approval.

All speculation.

I can only speak from the experience of my child's HS- bigotry towards homosexuals is seen exactly the same as bigotry towards African Americans or Chinese or Jews. The kids simply do not understand attitudes like yours, any more than they can understand the parents who insisted on segregated schools for their kids.