Ms. O'Neill's Eloquent Comments
After public comments at a Board of Education meeting, the members of the board are given an opportunity to make statements, too. Most of the time they don't, but occasionally somebody will say something, make an announcement or something. Lots of times it's like filler space, when you can bring up little things that aren't on the agenda.
Last night, board President Pat O'Neill made an outstanding statement during that period. It appeared to be totally extemporaneous, but I found her words to be very deeply considered and well ordered.
This was after a bunch of people had spoken in favor of traditional families.
Everybody loves a nice snuggly mom-and-dad family. Nobody is against a traditional family. That doesn't mean it's for everyone. Even one of the people who spoke for traditional families, if I remember correctly, is raising her children on her own, without a father. Yet she considers hers a traditional family. The others defined the traditional family as a man and a woman raising children together. (I would be interested to hear why this lady thought her apparently-untraditional family counted. Or why she would want to be counted with those who go out and speak publicly against her and her children.)
Much as the Leave It To Beaver ideal warms the heart, some people just aren't cut out for it, and sometimes life just doesn't deal you the cards you need for that. I can think of a million reason that someone would not settle into a traditional nuclear family.
But listen, in the end, it's nobody's business how somebody else's family works. If there's abuse, poverty, sure, that's everybody's problem. But you don't like it that somebody is a single parent, somebody is a gay parent, somebody gets divorced, a kid runs away, somebody chooses not to have kids, somebody can't have kids, somebody works nights, grandparents move in, a couple argues, cousins move in, somebody has an affair -- man, it's none of your business.
Personally, I can't imagine choosing something for the reason that it's "traditional." Wouldn't you want to do something because it's the best? And why would one thing be the best for everybody? I mean, it gets extreme, think how weird this is: these people think that gay guys should marry women! Can you imagine another idea that is that stupid, on the face of it? Would you want to be that guy? Would you want to be that woman?
I did think Ms. O'Neill's comments were very well expressed, and I hope the board will adopt the philosophy she expressed last night.
Last night, board President Pat O'Neill made an outstanding statement during that period. It appeared to be totally extemporaneous, but I found her words to be very deeply considered and well ordered.
This was after a bunch of people had spoken in favor of traditional families.
I just would like to comment that if nothing else, our journey into the family life curriculum has brought us new-found friends who come and give us public comment and I hope that their enthusiasm and their advocacy will carry forward. I heard some of them speaking about the need for more teachers to teach an alternative curriculum. I hope that those folks will continue to advocate for the resources for additional teachers because that is constantly a struggle of ours.
But I also would like to speak to our last speaker. Her statement reads, "Marriage is the bedrock of society. Don't discriminate against marriage in this curriculum." I'm proud to say I've been married for 33 years and I count my family as a traditional family. My sister was divorced and has a blended family. My sister-in-law, her husband passed away due to leukemia and she has been raising two very successful children.
If anything, I don't want to discriminate against any of our students for whatever their family circumstances may be because children can't control the circumstances in their home. We respect all of our children and we love all of the children in the Montgomery County Public School system.
And I certainly embrace traditional family values but I recognize that that is not what all of our children have. So I encourage our new friends to help us advocate for additional resources for the public school and remember that we do care for all of our children regardless of what their home circumstances are.
Everybody loves a nice snuggly mom-and-dad family. Nobody is against a traditional family. That doesn't mean it's for everyone. Even one of the people who spoke for traditional families, if I remember correctly, is raising her children on her own, without a father. Yet she considers hers a traditional family. The others defined the traditional family as a man and a woman raising children together. (I would be interested to hear why this lady thought her apparently-untraditional family counted. Or why she would want to be counted with those who go out and speak publicly against her and her children.)
Much as the Leave It To Beaver ideal warms the heart, some people just aren't cut out for it, and sometimes life just doesn't deal you the cards you need for that. I can think of a million reason that someone would not settle into a traditional nuclear family.
But listen, in the end, it's nobody's business how somebody else's family works. If there's abuse, poverty, sure, that's everybody's problem. But you don't like it that somebody is a single parent, somebody is a gay parent, somebody gets divorced, a kid runs away, somebody chooses not to have kids, somebody can't have kids, somebody works nights, grandparents move in, a couple argues, cousins move in, somebody has an affair -- man, it's none of your business.
Personally, I can't imagine choosing something for the reason that it's "traditional." Wouldn't you want to do something because it's the best? And why would one thing be the best for everybody? I mean, it gets extreme, think how weird this is: these people think that gay guys should marry women! Can you imagine another idea that is that stupid, on the face of it? Would you want to be that guy? Would you want to be that woman?
I did think Ms. O'Neill's comments were very well expressed, and I hope the board will adopt the philosophy she expressed last night.
posted by JimK at 4:56 PM
14 Comments:
JimK writes,
Everybody loves a nice snuggly mom-and-dad family. Nobody is against a traditional family.
and
Much as the Leave It To Beaver ideal warms the heart...
Patronizing and condescending remarks do not establish as a fact what really are opinions about marriage. Since this site is suppose to be about Teach the Facts I hope there would be some recognition and reference to the scholarly...yes, scholarly...work that has been done in this field of the social sciences.
A good place to start? How about here,
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-wmm.html
and then once you have read and considered the arguments here, check this out,
http://www.smartmarriages.com/divorce_brief.html
Public policy leaders can do one of two things when give the opportunity with regards to marriage. First, they can engage in rationalizations and excuses (as it would appear that MCPS Board President Pat O'Neill has done) with regards to measures offered to strengthen marriage as a social institution. Or, secondly, they can recognize basic principles of social organization and defend them without apology.
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
oryssman@hotmail.com
Orin
Marriage is a great thing. I've been married for seventeen years and wouldn't change a minute of it. But it's not for everybody. Just because I found somebody to be a lifelong partner doesn't mean that everybody should do what I did.
We notice that there is sort of a history of divorces in the CRC. Has that become "traditional?" No, of course not. It is simply an indicator that their rap about "traditional families" is more hypocrisy that they can't live up to.
As far as scholarly research. I recognize that, and in fact studied with one of the top people in the field. None of them recommend that people should marry someone they are not attracted to.
Jim
So, Orin, are you saying that we should discriminate against kids from single parent families or kids raised by grandparents or kids raised by brothers or sisters or raised by gay parents? What if you never find someone to marry or your spouse dies or both of the parents die- how can you teach kids not to let someone die or keep parents from divorcing or to marry because it is the "right" thing to do even if you never find someone with whom you want to spend your life ? Should we be telling our students that if you don't come from a two parent(and I assume you only mean a man and woman) home, you are not as good or as American or as something else as kids raised in a man/woman married parent home?
I am married for the first and only time for 22 years with 2 children but I know different kinds of families whose kids are as well or better adjusted as mine. See, I think real family values means judging each family on its own merits. Do you really think Britney and Kevin or Charles and Diana or Jude Law and Sadie Frost are better parents because they were all men/women married to each other with two more kids? Yes, they are bad examples- but they are real people in the "traditional" family mode.
Andrea
Well, I can add a few words here since I have been on both sides of the fence. But first let me see if I've done this correctly. . .
ah, ok!
I'm a divorced parent of three. I was married for ten years and now divorced for 8. At least half of my childrens friends come from divorced homes. The national stats demonstrate that the traditional familiy is increasingly becoming the minority.
Having said that, I would like to point out that there is nothing I would love more than to have my children raised in a two parent home. My life would be a hell of a lot easier, and my hair would be less gray, I would be less tired, and the house would be cleaner.And I could afford a vacation once in awhile. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. I did not stay married because if I had, my children would learn that lying is acceptable, that cheating is acceptable, that whoever has the most toys wins, that the kind of car you drive signals your value as a human being.
The reasons for divorce are many, but IMO, the number one reason is that we do not raise our children how to choose a spouse correctly. (Or maybe that should read "how to avoid the marrying the wrong person.")
Character is EVERYTHING. But the culture tells us that financial success and good looks are the main criteria for choosing a lifelong partner. Thing is, lots of good looking successful people are lying cheating fools. Well-educated doesn't mean squat either. I know plenty of folks with PHD's who don't understand human nature at all,let alone what good character is. And that's the bottom line. Money comes and goes, good looks fade and education can be a sword used to demean others.
How do we raise children to have the kind of character that enables them to be adults who contribute positively to society as a whole? We do so by instilling a sense of compassion and empathy for those less fortunate than ourselves, by teaching them that serving others provides the kind of rewards that money can not buy. We do it by being ever aware that everyone of us has a cross to bear and that things are never as they seem on the face of it.
WRT labels; I object to being labeled untradtional. Does tradition include children from two parent homes who have drinking problems? Who bully or mock or gossip about other kids who don't wear the right clothes? Who spend their parents money with reckless disregard? Does it include kids who raise themselves because *both* parents work ten hours a day so they kids can have name brand clothes or trips to Europe? Does tradition include those kids who are on ritalin so they can be controllable at school and in the home? Does it include those kids who smoke pot because their home life is a drag?
The emphasis of "traditional family values" is misplaced, if you asked me. What parents/teachers ought to be emphasizing is the rewards of having good character. Good character leads to healthy self esteem, which leads to self control and self discipline, which leads to compassion, which leads to acceptance of others imperfections, which leads to service of others for the greater good. If we nail that properly, everything else will fall into place. Including choosing the right spouse.
Again, having two parents is ideal, I do not disagree provided that both are well adjusted adults with good character, but it (staying married for the sake of the institution)is not the panacea for emotionally, mentally, spiritually healthy children let alone society. If it were, there wouldn't be a debate at all.
Wow, good comments, thank you. The people speaking the other night defined the traditional family as a man and a woman married to one another, with children. And yes, that leaves you out. It also leaves out many other kinds of families who may be just as loving and sincere as you.
I'm happy with the two=parent system in my life. It works well, we have lots of love and enough energy between us to keep up with the chaos. But it's not for everybody.
And your emphasis on character is very good. I would add one thing. We are not just "characters" who stay the same over time. We change. And someone may bring out the best side of someone else's character. In other words, there are not just good catches, but good matches. In my opinion.
Sorry, I have been busy entertaining out-of-town guests, or I would have replied sooner...
Where to start?...how about with Jim's comment that marriage is not for everyone. Did I say that? No, I did not. What I did say was that Jim's comments ("Everybody loves a nice snuggly mom-and-dad family." and "Much as the Leave It To Beaver ideal warms the heart...") were more opinion than fact with regards to marriage as a social and economic institution.
Has anyone...Andrea?...Lou?...Jim?
Gone to the two URL's I posted and looked at what social science research work has been done in this area?
Andrea writes,
So, Orin, are you saying that we should discriminate against kids from single parent families or kids raised by grandparents or kids raised by brothers or sisters or raised by gay parents?
No, I did not say that...though this is what I did say,
Public policy leaders can do one of two things when give the opportunity with regards to marriage. First, they can engage in rationalizations and excuses (as it would appear that MCPS Board President Pat O'Neill has done) with regards to measures offered to strengthen marriage as a social institution. Or, secondly, they can recognize basic principles of social organization and defend them without apology.
When a social institution, such as marriage, is under the assault of disintegrative sociocultural forces, we can chose to do nothing, in which case the status quo trend will likely continue. Or, we can do something to at least resist the trend. Speaking about marriage in the sense it has been historically understood in a condescending and patronizing manner will not resist that disintegrative trend.
Andrea later rhetorically asks,
Should we be telling our students that if you don't come from a two parent(and I assume you only mean a man and woman) home, you are not as good or as American or as something else as kids raised in a man/woman married parent home?
Did I say that? Did either of the two URL's I originally posted say that? If they did then you would have a case; alas, they did not. Neither did I.
In fact, I am at present finishing up a two year service project with an at risk youth. A major part of the reason this young boy is at risk is because he was abused (not by either parent, btw). A contributing risk factor is the fact that this boy's father and mother never married, and the father and the mother are no longer living together. The father is only involved in the most attenuated sense of the word.
And the results? It has plunged this boy's life into a world of poverty, countless educational challenges that will only be overcome with intensive intervention and deep-seated emotional insecurities. I have never, not once, ever said anything to undermine the esteem he would hold for either of his parents, but on those ocassions when he has seen me with my wife and two daughters I know he has felt the sting of not having a two parents under the same roof. How do I know? Because he has come right out and told me as much.
I have done what I can do for this boy to mitigate the harshness of his circumstances, and it leaves me with a heavy heart. What it has done for me personally is made me thankful that despite a clearly dysfunctional marriage, my parents stayed married and passed along to me advantages that have over the years clearly helped me...advantages denied the boy that I mentor (I should know, this boy and I are both ADHD...).
Andrea writes,
See, I think real family values means judging each family on its own merits. Do you really think Britney and Kevin or Charles and Diana or Jude Law and Sadie Frost are better parents because they were all men/women married to each other with two more kids?
Well Andrea, I think you answered your own question,
Yes, they are bad examples- but they are real people in the "traditional" family mode.
Yes, they are "bad" (I would prefer the less judgemental term "imperfect") of families. And no, they are not real people in the traditional (absent scare quotes) family sense of the word.
And finally, Jim concludes with congratulations (thougb on what basis I am not sure since nobody has yet addressed the idea of marriage as a normative social standard, which is the upshot of the two URL's I posted) and this remark,
But it's not for everybody.
And your emphasis on character is very good. I would add one thing. We are not just "characters" who stay the same over time.
Sigh...again, I did not say it was for everyone. What I said then and reiterate now is this: marriage, i.e. between a man and a woman, due to the external social benefits it provides society, ought to be held up as the normative standard. Will everyone be able to attain to that normative standard? I suspect in an imperfect world such an expectation would be naive. Just because some will not be able to attain to a standard, does that mean we should not have standards? However, one of the key factors to the development of character is making and keeping committments, much like is found in marriage.
The only question then is this: will we as a society do more, or less, to push marriage as a positive good for men, women, and any children that might result from such a union? Anyone care to address that question, esp in light of the social science research?
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
Orin Ryssman said, "The only question then is this: will we as a society do more, or less, to push marriage as a positive good for men, women, and any children that might result from such a union?"
First, thanks for the articles you sent, but neither of them included same-sex parents as a category so they are rather useless for the discussion at hand.
Second, I suspect the answer to your question about pushing marriage (and all its benefits) would depend on what one's definition of "marriage" is.
The National Council on Family Relations has been studying families since 1938. NCFR put out a policy document entitled "Same-Sex Marriage Fact Sheet," which can be found at: http://www.ncfr.com/pdf/Same_Sex_Marriage_Fact_Sheet.pdf
It states, "Social science research has found few differences between children of lesbian or gay parents and those of heterosexual parents.(10, 11)
Because the marriage of same-sex couples is not a legal institution in the United States, there are currently no studies of how same-sex marriage affects family life or child development. However, research on same-sex couples who have obtained second parent adoptions to legalize ties between children and both of their parents suggests that legalization may strengthen ties among the couples, their children, and their extended families. (12, 13)
Children born to, or adopted by, heterosexual married couples are automatically legally protected and provided benefits by their parents' marriage. The children of same-sex couples do not automatically receive the same protections and benefits..."
Seems to me we all have a choice here. Do we continue to support a society that discriminates because it only provides the automatic protections and benefits of marriage to children with heterosexual parents? Or do we urge society to expand and provide equal automatic protections and benefits to all children regardless of who their parents are?
Since you obviously care for children, Opie, maybe you ought to want to improve protections for all children, regardless of who their parents might be, just like Mrs. O'Neill suggested.
Aunt Bea
Aunt Bea writes,
Since you obviously care for children, Opie, maybe you ought to want to improve protections for all children, regardless of who their parents might be, just like Mrs. O'Neill suggested.
Orin Ryssman replies,
First off, my name is Orin, not "Opie"...would it be too much to ask for the same respect I grant everyone else?
Second, how is it that this particular thread, started by the posting of Ms. O'Neill's "eloquent comments" which seem to be directed at heterosexual non-traditional families (i.e. families resulting from death, divorce, non-marriage, etc.) veer off into a discussion same-sex parents as a category? I'll admit that O'Neill's remarks suggest such a direction, but they are hardly clear on the matter. What does seem clear to me is the leit motif of Teach the Facts, towit: homosexual advocacy in our public schools.
As I have said before, and I will say it again, rankly I can live without any sex education in our public schools...no abstinence education, no comprehensive ed. or any combination of the two. Why? Because using limited instructional time in service of this or that social agenda does little to help students achieve competancy in reading, writing, or math. Also, and this is more evident now than ever before, delving into such a controversial area is unnecessarily devisive and time consuming, not to mention that it weakens broad support for our public education system (and as the successful by-product of our public schools I want to see that continued). Yet, groups like Teach the Facts, as well as national organizations like SIECUS, Adovoates for Youth, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, etc. continue to push for ever more sex education. Clearly more than simple facts are at work here...there is politically ideological agenda at work.
So, am I advocating ignorance? Come now...in the times that we live now if a parent and/or teen cannot figure out how to protect themselves in choosing to be sexually active then they probably deserve a Darwin Award.
And finally, last but not least, you might want to consider this paper, found here,
http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.htm
which also has a link to the study in PDF.
Aunt Bea writes,
maybe you ought to want to improve protections for all children, regardless of who their parents might be, just like Mrs. O'Neill suggested.
Yes, I do, but not at the expense of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals that as a group benefit by marriage. Marriage is about more than self-esteem boosting; it is about protecting, nurturing and helping the Next Generation. Is that too much to ask for 95% of the population?
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
oryssman@hotmail.com
Orin Ryssman, Fort Collins, CO, oryssman@hotmail.com, (I trust this will be precise enough for you to know who I am addressing.)said....
"Marriage is about more than self-esteem boosting; it is about protecting, nurturing and helping the Next Generation. Is that too much to ask for 95% of the population?"
Why only 95%? What makes you think that allowing the last 5% to wed will be "at the expense of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals that as a group benefit by marriage"? How does allowing more people to wed cause harm to others that already can?
Aunt Bea
I'll tell you what makes me think Mrs. O'Neill was addressing homosexual parents in her eloquent comments, "...I certainly embrace traditional family values but I recognize that that is not what all of our children have....remember that we do care for all of our children regardless of what their home circumstance are."
1. Maryland State law (COMAR) requires the optional human sexuality unit of the health curriculum to provide information about "sexual variations."
2. One of the most frequent complaints about the now rescinded curriculum update from the Dobson backed PFOX and their local CRC front was the fact that it mentioned same-sex parents as a type of family.
3. The settlement agreement states: "Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or enlarge the legal right of MCPS to develop, revise or implement curriculum, including curriculum that provides information on sexual variations and promotes tolerance of others regardless of sexual orientation."
4. The night Mrs. O'Neill made the eloquent comments was the night several anti-gay activists made pleas to the BOE to include a unit that teaches the benefits of traditional marriage.
5. Mrs. O'Neill only mentioned her own siblings' families which included one mixed and one widowed family. Maybe she doesn't have a gay cousin Steve like Mrs. Turner has, one of the few gays apparently born that way.
MCPS Mom
Aunt Bea writes,
(I trust this will be precise enough for you to know who I am addressing.)
Orin writes,
As I made clear in the last entry it was about respect as an ethical precept, not precision...
Aunt Bea writes,
Why only 95%? What makes you think that allowing the last 5% to wed will be "at the expense of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals that as a group benefit by marriage"? How does allowing more people to wed cause harm to others that already can?
Ever heard of "majority rules with minority rights"? What that means is this: that on most issues any controversy that may derive from a difference of opinion is put to a vote, the outcome of which all are obliged to abide by. On some issues however we have decided as a civic community that differences of opinion will NOT be put to a vote. For example, slavery. There is no question in the American civic community that no person is a master just as no person is a slave.
So, naturally, the argument and controversy surrounding the debate over same-sex marriage hinges ultimately on whether or not there is a fundamental right in marriage. Mormons put this question to a test and in 1878 the US Supreme Court ruled that as much as they believed it was their religious right to have more than one wife, the State had a compelling interest in regulating the institution of marriage. Other legal precedents have followed that have in effect re-affirmed this principle.
Even in States that voted for John Kerry in the last election and that had defense of marriage voter propositions on the same ballot, passed those defense of marriage laws...even the State of Oregon, one of the most politically liberal states on the West coast (that shocked me).
Now to the core part of your question,
"How does allowing more people to wed cause harm to others that already can?"
Simply put because where same-sex marriage has been instituted by law, the rate of cohabitation has increased. Sorry, I don't have a sampling of countries or the stats ready at hand, but I have come across this in my studies of this issue.
So, what is wrong with more people cohabitating, you ask? Well, it is not marriage, and studies have shown that it is marriage, not simply a committment between two adults, that makes a decisive difference in the health and welfare of children over the long term.
Now, I would be delighted to track that information down and post it here, but as I have posted other information here only to have it run head on into political and social prejudices I am left to wonder what good it would do.
Allowing the last 5% to radically redefine the institution of marriage in their quest for societal approval will further weaken marriage to the point where it will nobody any good, especially children.
This exercise has been interesting for me as it has helped me to better understand the ultimate objective of comprehensive sex education: the wholesale dismantling of long established societal norms. Where will it stop? Goodness, I wish I knew...
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
Yes, thank you Orin Ryssman, Fort Collins, CO, oryssman@hotmail.com. I am well aware of the concept of majority rule. It's always good to point it out again though, especially to those who do not quite seem to grasp the concept. Opponents to the addition of information about sexual orientation to the MCPS health education curriculum were out-voted at every turn by the majority of Montgomery County residents who made up the citizens advisory committee. When all the votes by the committee led the majority to approve a curriculum that was inclusive, opponents sought an activist judge. Of course they had to settle, but they did manage to delay the inevitable.
And I accept and thank you for your offer. Please do show us this research conducted "where same-sex marriage has been instituted by law" that proves that permitting gay marriage causes a decrease in marriage and subsequent harm to children. I realize you didn't say the study proves causation but let's see it and and analyze what it does say. I am curious to hear you tell us exactly how you believe allowing gays the dignity to marry the person they love will "weaken marriage to the point where it will [do] nobody any good, especially children."
And please, do try to tuck in that little paranoia problem your last paragraph illustrates. You are having a discussion with one person (or maybe two, hello MCPS Mom). My personal views are just that. What you see as "the wholesale dismantling of long established societal norms," I see as the natural growth and expansion of these same norms. Decades ago, we prevented the races from intermarrying and those who advocated for interracial marriage were accused of causing the destruction of the institition of marriage. Well, did interracial marriage cause that destruction? No, it didn't. Similarly, today we prevent the genders from intermarrying. Again, you and others claim the destruction of marriage will ensue if we permit the expansion of the right to wed to this group. I disagree.
We keep on evolving, well, some of us.
Aunt Bea
I made a mistake above and fix it here:
The sentence that reads, "Similarly, today we prevent the genders from intermarrying," should read, "Similarly, today we prevent the genders from 'intra-marrying' (marrying someone of their own gender)."
Aunt Bea
Post a Comment
<< Home