Push to Ban Gay Marriage in Maine Looks Like CA Prop 8 Fight
AUGUSTA, Maine --- The issue of "gay marriage" in public schools is now front and center in Maine, thanks to a new television ad paid for by a group opposed to redefining marriage.
Stand For Marriage Maine launched the ad Sept. 23, spotlighting a Massachusetts couple whose son's second-grade class was read a book, "King & King," about a prince who "marries" another prince. The couple objected and requested notification of similar books in the future, but the school refused. The couple then sued in federal court and lost.
The ad is at the heart of an effort to pass Question 1, an initiative on the Nov. 3 ballot that would overturn Maine's recently passed "gay marriage" law.
The couple, Robb and Robin Wirthlin, were featured prominently in a similar TV ad in California last year in the fight over Proposition 8, which passed. In fact, the issue of what would and would not be taught in California's schools became the leading issue in the final weeks of the Prop 8 campaign, and opponents of the California initiative struggled to come up with a believable response. Supporters of Maine Question 1 are hoping for a repeat.
"The only way to be sure that homosexual marriage won't be taught in Maine is to pass Question 1," Stand for Marriage Maine campaign director Marc Mutty wrote in an e-mail to constituents. "Our opponents have spent the past week claiming that, 'Question 1 has nothing to do with schools or education,' as [Question 1 opponent] Jesse Connolly told the Kennebec Journal Morning Sentinel. Massachusetts parents didn't think that the legalization of gay marriage there would result it in being taught in Massachusetts schools. But it did."
Connolly, campaign manager of Protect Maine Equality, the primary group opposing Question 1, sent an e-mail to constituents the day the new ad was released, arguing that the ad was the "exact same ad" that had been run in California and that "Maine's marriage equality law has nothing to do with public schools and marriage is not taught in Maine schools."
Protect Maine Equality already has tried to counter the public schools charge with its own ad, which featured schoolteacher Sherri Gould of Corinna, Maine, in a classroom saying, "I've been teaching in Maine schools since 1983. We teach respect and Maine values. That will never change." With the ad showing pictures of different families, a narrator says, "Outsiders are trying to harm our kids and schools by deceiving families about what's taught in Maine classrooms. It won't work. Because in Maine, all families put children first."
Stand for Marriage Maine's new ad shows the Wirthlins, sitting on a couch. "After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage," Robin Wirthlin says, "our son came home and told us the school taught him that boys can marry other boys. He's in second grade!" Robb Wirthlin adds, "We tried to stop public schools from teaching children about gay marriage, but the court said we had no right to object or to pull him out of class." The scene then shifts to a teacher, Charla Bansley of Ellsworth, who says, "It's already happened in Massachusetts. Vote yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being taught in Maine schools."
One Maine TV station, Portland's WMTW Channel 8, questioned Stand for Marriage Maine's argument and in a Sept. 21 story asserted, "According to the Department of Education, no specific curriculum language exists or would exist that instructs schools to teach about marriage."
Mutty acknowledges that there is no statewide requirement regarding marriage curriculum, but he said that's not the point.
"While we all know that curriculum decisions in Maine are largely up to local school boards, we also know that there is already tremendous pressure on local school boards from Augusta to adopt 'gay friendly' curriculum TODAY, and gay marriage isn't even legal now," he wrote. "If they succeed in defeating Question 1 and legalizing homosexual marriage, this pressure on local school boards will dramatically increase. This is what happened in Massachusetts, and it will happen in Maine too. Any instruction on marriage cannot avoid a discussion of homosexual marriage, since the law will define marriage as genderless -- traditional and homosexual marriage will legally be the same thing."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
One of the arguments voiced during the attempt to pass homosexual marriage in California was that it would not effect school curriculum. Parents doubted it then and now there is proff they were right! The homosexual movement lied. But whats new?
We could get away from the idea of marriage and just have a king? or just a queen? why not stories that don't involve marriage at all and that simply teach other things that everyone agrees on? (ex. murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, kindness is right?)
Children should be given the truth. There are now children of same sex couples in many of your schools . Do you really think your children are blind and deaf. Children are more loving and understanding than adults and they will know sooner or later that they were given the untruth even if it is through omission. I know this may be a strange concept...but telling someone that there is gay in the world doesn't make the listener gay. Your honesty may save a child's life when he or she discovers in their teens or earlier that they are gay and they take their own life. Younger voters are making the difference with their knowledge that gay isn't bad....and most of them have gay friends which disproves your teachings. The voting youth is more in touch with the reality of equality...although they are totally different ways...they are equal. I wish the adults would grow up and listen to your kids .
tolerance isn't a two-way street,
Anyone actually know what the language of the proposed Question is?
It was one thing when the Supreme Court ruled that the public schools could not promote Christian prayer . It's quite another thing for the schools to teach children that sin is good.
But it's not a sin to everyone. To Muslims and Jewish people, eating pork is a sin. If you are not a Muslim (or Jewish), eating pork is probably not a sin to you.
Should schools not teach that people eat pork?
It's in this sense that America is (or at least was and arguably should still be) a "Christian" country. Yes, we have freedom of prayer and theology, but the argument for Christians tolerating non-Christians is "What does it matter to you that I'm not a Christian, as long as I'm a moral person?"
Since we're talking about why it should matter TO A CHRISTIAN, the implicit assumption is that we're talking about the nonbeliever's affirmation of CHRISTIANITY'S moral ideals. It's in that sense that America, despite its freedom of religion , can be described as a "Christian country." That is, though we have no supported state church , Christianity is the foundation for America's culture.
Fortunately for Jews and Muslims, Christianity does not consider it immoral to refrain from pork.
The Gay community want Gay marriage to become a mainstream subject. The problem is it is being rushed and nobody likes being rushed. Look how long it took African Americans to be recognized as equal human beings in America.
Sidney
Gay marriage and teaching about LGBTs in schools do not go hand in hand. If gay marriage is legalized by the state, that does NOT mean that it will be in every textbook in the state. But it should be.
Do gays have nothing to contribute to society ? Are they of no value? Do they exist? By pushing away teaching that there are different minorities out there is to instill intolerance. Kids are savvy, and they know a lot about the world that we don't think they do. However, they are also highly impressionable. Most children , when they hear of gays, they almost always hear negative things. Kids see from their peers that being gay is a bad thing; nothing to be proud of. This is unfortunate and this is why teaching about gays in school should be encouraged.
If kids get a chance to see that gays are normal people, there will be more tolerance and you will see less suicide among LGBT teens . It won't make kids gay just by recognizing that gays exist and are a normal variant of society.
Just imagine if there were no black population and blacks were never discussed in school except when people say negative things about them. The kids who listen to this BS get the impression that blacks are bad because no one has told them otherwise. This is the same situation with the LGBT community now.
I've found the posts here interesting...
I am a civil celebrant. That means I can officiate at any non-religious ceremony that a person wishes, such as funerals, child namings etc. This is because that even people who are not religious, desire formal acknowledgement of the significant milestones in their lives.
I know many couples (straight and gay), who are not religious and would prefer to leave the term " marriage " within the context of organised religious unions . They would prefer to have a legally recognised civil union. Such a union would confer the same legal rights regarding children , settling of estates, welfare benefits, taxation etc, as those who have a legal "marriage".
So perhaps the option of a legal civil union that is not referred to as "marriage", with the legal union conducted by a religious body retaining the term "marriage", would satisfy most people.
The ones I see being disadvantaged by such a situation would be gays who are religious - but what church would then marry them? I know! In the US it is very easy to start a religion ...
I have gay and straight friends, many of the "straights" are married and many are not. My gay friends of course, are not able to legally marry in Australia. My 2 boys know that amongst my friends there are some people living together in arrangements that are not the same as our own family ( mother , father, children). We advocate a position that how we live works for our family, and that the way our friends live works for them. They haven't asked the hard questions yet as they are only 3 and 5. We will deal with things as they arise.
I used to be a classroom teacher and had to teach sex education to 12 & 13 year olds. The teaching was about the basic mechanics of sex between a man and a woman. When difficult questions regarding sexual preference were raised, I used to explain to the kids that I wasn't averse to discussing these things, but that their parents should be the people they ask first, as parents sometimes have opinions that they would prefer the child to hear from them first. I also welcomed contact from parents who wanted to discuss what was being taught, and who felt awkward about how to address their children's curiousity. This was in the early 1980s.
Sometimes there were parents who contacted me and asked me to explain the concept of sexuality - which can be hard to do. I kept it very basic - some men are attracted to men, rather than women. Some women are attracted to women, rather than men. Others are attracted to the opposite sex. I didn't place judgement values on any relationship being better than any other. What I did stress was that good relationships should be loving, caring, compassionate, and not involve harm to others.