Applications Are In -- What's Next?
Now it's in the school board's hands. Applications for the citizens committee have been submitted, the deadline was the day before yesterday. We submitted our three nominations, I assume the other side submitted their names for consideration. The school board has said they had over a hundred applications for the fifteen-member committee.
Clearly, the Superintendent and board intend to keep a tight rein on this group. It sounds like the plan is this:
Signs are that the CRC folks are waiting for some procedural misstep, so they can file suit again. Their expectations for the curriculum are so weird and crazy -- i.e., they insist that MCPS students should be taught about "ex-gays" -- that they have no chance of getting what they want. So ... back to the courts.
Last time the school district was completely unprepared for the lawsuit. It was like they didn't see it coming. One reporter told me about sitting in the courtroom watching, and it got worse and worse, and at some point another reporter leaned over and whispered, "I think they're going to lose this." And sure enough, they did. Amateurish lawyers let the judge get tangled up in deceptive arguments, failed to be prepared with coherent counterarguments, and what do you know? The county loses, the community loses, common sense loses.
There are a bunch of regulations at the state and local levels about how a new curriculum is supposed to be written. The school board had better be working closely with better lawyers than they had, to make sure they have seen, understood, and followed every little nuance of the rules. Because Montgomery County is counting on them winning this time.
There are also conditions in the agreement between MCPS and the other side's lawyers. As we noted back when, they seemed upset when they realized what they had actually agreed to, but it is not unclear or vague or hard to understand. Great Swarmy predicts they will claim that the school district violated their agreement -- again, MCPS pay attention, your lawyers need to anticipate this kind of attack and be prepared to argue against it.
Meanwhile, the other side is quiet. Their blog has died, their website has not been updated in weeks, their online forum is silent since they kicked off everybody who disagrees with them. Their recent attempted TV appearance was a failure when they had to cancel in order to avoid any exchange of viewpoints with our side. Their President sent out a snotty listserve message a few days ago when our forum was announced, but it was so inarticulate and obviously not well thought-through that it had no effect at all. Yes, they are quiet.
I'll just bet, though, that there are lots of phone calls to their lawyers.
Clearly, the Superintendent and board intend to keep a tight rein on this group. It sounds like the plan is this:
- The district writes a curriculum
- They show it to the citizens advisory committee
- The committee comments on it
- The school board thanks them
Signs are that the CRC folks are waiting for some procedural misstep, so they can file suit again. Their expectations for the curriculum are so weird and crazy -- i.e., they insist that MCPS students should be taught about "ex-gays" -- that they have no chance of getting what they want. So ... back to the courts.
Last time the school district was completely unprepared for the lawsuit. It was like they didn't see it coming. One reporter told me about sitting in the courtroom watching, and it got worse and worse, and at some point another reporter leaned over and whispered, "I think they're going to lose this." And sure enough, they did. Amateurish lawyers let the judge get tangled up in deceptive arguments, failed to be prepared with coherent counterarguments, and what do you know? The county loses, the community loses, common sense loses.
There are a bunch of regulations at the state and local levels about how a new curriculum is supposed to be written. The school board had better be working closely with better lawyers than they had, to make sure they have seen, understood, and followed every little nuance of the rules. Because Montgomery County is counting on them winning this time.
There are also conditions in the agreement between MCPS and the other side's lawyers. As we noted back when, they seemed upset when they realized what they had actually agreed to, but it is not unclear or vague or hard to understand. Great Swarmy predicts they will claim that the school district violated their agreement -- again, MCPS pay attention, your lawyers need to anticipate this kind of attack and be prepared to argue against it.
Meanwhile, the other side is quiet. Their blog has died, their website has not been updated in weeks, their online forum is silent since they kicked off everybody who disagrees with them. Their recent attempted TV appearance was a failure when they had to cancel in order to avoid any exchange of viewpoints with our side. Their President sent out a snotty listserve message a few days ago when our forum was announced, but it was so inarticulate and obviously not well thought-through that it had no effect at all. Yes, they are quiet.
I'll just bet, though, that there are lots of phone calls to their lawyers.
posted by JimK at 1:30 PM
17 Comments:
Since we know they are connected
to the money on the far right via
their partner, the Dobson-launched
PFOX and their pro-bono lawyer at
the Falwell spawned Liberty
Counsel (who walked off with
$33,000.00 of MCPS funds), I'm
sure they will be back with a
vengence of Biblical proportion
soon enough. Their Madison Avenue
pals are no doubt designing a
slick new website to hide the bias
of their views.
Personally, I can't wait to see
how they will attempt to mask:
1. their distain for teaching
teenagers how to protect
themselves when sexual active; and
2. their bigotry against
homosexuals.
MCPS Mom
MCPS Mom writes,
1. their distain for teaching
teenagers how to protect
themselves when sexual active
Dear Mom,
I think the word you are looking for it DISDAIN...
Secondly, I operate from the assumption that my children ought to learn self-control, a skill that will help them thru their entire adult life. Abstinence education is more consistent with such an objective than the message of "use a condom - they stop the spread of SPERM and GERMS" (well, sort of, since even condoms connot effectively protect against HPV) comprehensive sex ed crowd.
And finally, while I consider myself conservative, my wife and I both have close, long-term friendships with gays and lesbians. They visit and stay with us, and we with them. Our two daughters know that these friends love a member of their own gender, and that while this is not compatible with mainstream Judeo-Christian sexual ethics (and this in spite of the Rev. Spong's repeated efforts to the contrary) these are OUR friends and we love them AS IS. Of course, this creates a bit of a tension...a conflict if you will...but that is life.
What I have witnessed at TeachTheIdeo...err, I mean Facts.org is a clear case of strongly partisan and heavily ideological selection of the facts.
And as I learned in a lower level, introductory political science class at a state university in California is that facts do not speak for themselves, but only in the framework within which they are placed and organized.
I am aware that at my local school district they have GLBT safe zone stickers placed in certain locations, such as the counseling office. I could make a stink about it if I wanted to be an uptight snit about things. I don't. Keep pushing the Homosexualist Agenda, and I might be persuaded to change my mind...
Sincerely,
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
M
I don't know you, Orin but I have a hard time believing that someone who talks about the "homosexualist agenda" actually has gay friends. Why do you let them stay or visit them-are they "good" gays? . It sounds like people who like to say "Some of my best friends are" - black ,Jewish, hispanic, gay- before launching into a diatribe about that group.
And don't make threats as if we will back down from what we know is right by you saying you might complain about safe zines. If our local homophobes can't stop us, why would we do it for you?
Andrea
Orin....
Why do you care what we think or do since you are in CO and you think we are pushing a "homosexualist agenda"?
Will someone please outline what is meant by the conservative phrase "homosexual agenda?" Does this mean seeking equal protection under the law? Ensuring legal safeguards for family members when they get sick? Protection against hate crimes? Gee, this sounds an awful lot like the heterosexual agenda too.
Sometimes the language on this blog can be a bit colorful, but make no mistake, we recognize that 50% of high school students become sexually active, that there is no easy solution, that teaching abstinence as the best and only fool proof method of contraception and STD avoidance is key, that all major medical organizations accept homosexuality as a normal sexual variation, and that all teenagers, regardless of sexual orientation, need to be educated about the risks of making bad choices. What we will not tolerate is labeling kids who are not heterosexual as "abnormal" or "sick," equating reparative therapy with accepted medical practices, and depriving kids of contraception and STD education--stuff they will need to know to keep themselves as healthy as possible, maybe now, but hopefully far in the future.
Parents who object strongly have the right not to give their permission for their children to take the course. They should not have the right to opt out all of our children too.
Will someone please outline what is meant by the conservative phrase "homosexual agenda?" Does this mean seeking equal protection under the law? Ensuring legal safeguards for family members when they get sick? Protection against hate crimes? Gee, this sounds an awful lot like the heterosexual agenda too.
Sometimes the language on this blog can be a bit colorful, but make no mistake, we recognize that 50% of high school students become sexually active, that there is no easy solution, that teaching abstinence as the best and only fool proof method of contraception and STD avoidance is key, that all major medical organizations accept homosexuality as a normal sexual variation, and that all teenagers, regardless of sexual orientation need to be educated about the risks of making bad choices. What we will not tolerate is labeling kids who are not heterosexual as "abnormal" or "sick," equating reparative therapy with accepted medical practices, and depriving kids of contraception and STD education--stuff they will need to know to keep themselves as healthy as possible, maybe now, but hopefully far in the future.
Parents who object strongly have the right not to give their permission for their children to take the course. They should not have the right to opt out all of our children too.
Andrea writes,
I don't know you, Orin but I have a hard time believing that someone who talks about the "homosexualist agenda" actually has gay friends.
Believe it...so, what is a "homosexualist agenda"?...since I threw that herring out. Well, time once was, that what gays and lesbians wanted was toleration...even now I recall that...the plea to be left alone. Such a plea resonated with a majority of fellow Americans because they understood as one US Supreme Court Justice put it (Oliver Wendell Holmes?), if freedom means anything, it means the right to be left alone.
And then, before long, the plea changed and became a plea for acceptance. And why not? It seemed like the right thing to do and in that acceptance we open ourselves and gays/lesbians to each other as family members, relatives, co-workers and neighbors. That was and remains a good thing to have happened.
Now however, the gale force winds of radical egalitarianism are blowing and will not be satisfied until everyone and everything is made equal. French Aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw this tendency and described it in great detail (in his magnum opus, Democracy in America) and in a way that can only be described as...well...prophetic.
Toleration and acceptance are no longer enough...the Leveling Winds demand that gays/lesbians have every institution open to them that is open to heterosexuals, even if their lives are not compatible with essential aspects of the heterosexual life. Here we are talking about something more than toleration and acceptance; social/moral legitimization.
One such bedrock heterosexual institution is marriage. A necessary component of marriage is love. But don't gays/lesbians love? Well, yes, they do and they order their lives around that love. Yet, while love is necessary, it is not sufficient to the maintenance of a marriage. What more is needed? Discipline.
But why discipline? In a word: children...ahhh, the next generation. The female sexual nature is more compatible with the discipline of a marrital relationship (hence the stability of lesbian relationships that ought to be the envy of heterosexuals). The male sexual (and it is vastly different...and this difference remains in spite of those leveling winds) craves one thing at its base: variety. And to what does this lead? Well, a level of sexual promiscuity that is on average stunning. If I could, I would extend marriage to lesbians, and not to gays for this very reason of distinction...but, alas, Society is having this demand presented as a package deal.
Now, why in the world would a society that is concerned with social stability and self-preservation allow two men to utilize the benefits of marriage, while having sexual antures that fundamentally are at odds with a key ingredient, discipline, of marriage???
Bottomline? Marriage is about more than love...alot more.
One of my gay friends is a librarian in California. My closest friend, a friend of over 20 years, and a friend that is closer to me than any of my four brothers was at one time the Executive Director of a gay/lesbian organization of national stature (that is as specific as I can get). This friend has kept a record of our friendship and even this blog entry will go into that record.
Hard to imagine? Yeah, I can understand...
Why do you let them stay or visit them-are they "good" gays? .
While the tone of your question leaves me to doubt the sincerity of your question (that is to say, do you REALLY want to KNOW, or are you just merely curious?), I will attempt to answer it.
Nobel Prize winner Ellie Wiesel once said that there are only two races of humans: the decent, and the indecent. My gay and lesbian friends are some of the most decent people I have ever known and my life is immeasurably enriched for their friendship.
It sounds like people who like to say "Some of my best friends are" - black ,Jewish, hispanic, gay- before launching into a diatribe about that group.
Ahhh, one of the classic modern liberal conceits...sigh.
When I lived in California I did have Jewish friends (in college). I can't say that I have ever had black or hispanic friends...though if such friends were put in my path, I would gladly accept them.
In my opinion, friendship is (or at least ought to be) a natural/organic and evolutionary process. That is to say, it cannot be forced, or faked.
And as for knowing, or not knowing this group of which I speak...well, let me simply say this: I know of what I speak...enough so that my teenage daughter will at times taunt me, saying I ought to come out of the closest. I don't get mad, or even bothered by such talk; it is product of a juvenile mind (quite literally!).
Why do I let "them" stay? Because they are my friends...don't you do that for your friends? The close friend will be visiting me at the end of this month...we will see Garden of the Gods and Pikes Peak in Colorado Springs, take a drive thru Rocky Mountain National Park, and spend time together, focused on what unites us as friends.
Andrea writes,
And don't make threats as if we will back down from what we know is right by you saying you might complain about safe zines. If our local homophobes can't stop us, why would we do it for you?
I am sorry as that part I spoke in anger.
However, please don't expect that those of us concerned with the leveling winds of the homosexualist agenda will back down. While it is true that a part of those opposed to this agenda hate/dislike gays and lesbians (and that is truly unfortunate), still others like myself, experience the tension of having ideals that conflict with the life we find ourselves living.
I could (indeed at one time I withdrew my hand of friendship to this particular gay friend) terminate all relationships if I find out that that person is homosexual. Then again, how mature do you think that is? Friendship is a grace of God extended into our lives...friends help us to be the best version of ourselves...who am I to refuse such a grace?
Anyhow, there you have it...I doubt I will convince you that I am for real. Frankly, I care as little for convincing you as I do attempting to convince my teenager that I am straight...
Still though, this has been a good exercise for me as it sharpens my ideas so that they may compete in the marketplace of ideas. May the best ideas win!
Best Wishes,
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
oryssman@hotmail.com
Do you tell your "gay friends" about the your notion of the
"homosexualist agenda" and your feelings about that to their faces?
Kay R
Kay R writes...or rather queries,
Do you tell your "gay friends" about the your notion of the
"homosexualist agenda" and your feelings about that to their faces?
Did you read what I wrote?
Ok, well, just in case you missed it (here it is again...sigh),
This friend has kept a record of our friendship and even this blog entry will go into that record.
So, I guess the answer is...YES.
Did that answer your question?
Orin
Orin writes, "please don't expect
that those of us concerned with
the leveling winds of the
homosexualist agenda will back
down. While it is true that a part
of those opposed to this agenda
hate/dislike gays and lesbians
(and that is truly unfortunate),
still others like myself,
experience the tension of having
ideals that conflict with the life
we find ourselves living."
*Tension*, *hatred*, whatever your
reason for not showing
*toleration* toward gays, you have
to live with yourself. You claim
to be friends with some gays, and
yet insist on working to keep the
gays you don't bring into your
home from being who they are and
full functioning members of
society. With friends like that,
who needs enemies?
And Orin, I will forgive and repair
your "marrital relationship" and
your "sexual antures" but by all
means go ahead and revile my
"distain" to your black heart's
content.
MCPS Mom
Maybe Orin will "fix us all" for promoting a "homosexualist agenda"?
Watch out Orin we may leave the borders of Maryland and head west to CO. and bring it with us.
Sorry but sometimes I just cannot take what you write seriously...:)
Kay R
OK, Orin, the spelling thing was a little petty, you must agree, now that you've done the same thing.
I emjoyed reading your explanation of your views, and appreciate the soul-searching you are doing in discussing this.
It was somewhat interesting to see how you view the progression from tolerance to acceptance to legitimization. OK, that would be the progression, I suppose. The question then is, what's wrong with that?
You see discipline as an important part of marriage, and finally tie that down to the task of raising children. But are you saying that everyone needs to raise children? I mentioned before, I have known a lot of Mormons, and I understand something of the importance of bringing those souls to earth, but does everybody have to do it? Are homosexuals worse than, say, infertile or sterile people? I'm thinking, since you haven't mentioned an "infertilist agenda", that maybe they are. And I don't see how your argument supports that conclusion.
As for discipline and promiscuity, well, promiscuity is a social problem no matter whether a person is straight or gay. It's interesting that you seem to think lesbian marriage would be OK, as you think maybe marriage is a way to keep a leash on the male libido. I like that argument, it's got a nice quirky ring to it. It might be an original thought of yours, isn't it?
But try this on. There has never been any social standard for gay relationships. Our society pretends they don't exist, and so gay people have to just wing it. What would happen if we tolerated/accepted/legitimized homosexuality, and included them in our plans? What if we expected gay men to behave decently and maintain a commitment to a relationship?
I am suggesting that the volatility of gay relationships -- and there are very many lifelong homosexual relationships, but this is an issue -- might be due to the fact that there are not established norms and expectations from the society in general. One might conclude, "They don't care what I do, they'll never accept me anyway, so I might as well indulge myself."
JimK
Orin,
Thank you for sharing your views. It can be difficult to do with a group that will obviously see things differently.
I wonder if you can clarify how you can justify denying someone the right to the legal benefits of a lifelong partnership purely on the grounds of the gender of their consenting partner? The dismay that this movement has sought progression from tolerance (freedom from slavery) to acceptance (desegregation) to seeking equality (affirmative action) sounds familiar. I would say that it is not a homosexual agenda. It is a democratic agenda, and American agenda, an effort to do away with discrimination, legal penalty and unfairness due to one's gender, appearance, relgious choice, and yes, sexual orientation. It is precisely this progress in recognizing the rights and potential of people that has made our country great. Why decry that progress?
Kay writes,
Maybe Orin will "fix us all" for promoting a "homosexualist agenda"?
Nope...wouldn't dream of it. Either the arguments I make are compelling, or they are not...period. What I will do though is pitch my arguments to others, attempt to gather enough votes for my side, and then have a vote...that is the way things ought to be in a free and open society.
Again Kay,
Watch out Orin we may leave the borders of Maryland and head west to CO. and bring it with us.
Sorry but sometimes I just cannot take what you write seriously...:)
Well, there is talk here in CO that we may be in the middle of a political transition of sorts...from a "red state" to purple (with the fondest of hopes among the liberal/left that the trend will turn the state blue). Part of this is based on the fact that the Rep. lost the state house to Dem. control, and they lost one of the US Senate seats to the Dems. (Salazar; though I would not count this too highly as Salazar ran up against the weakest of weak candidates the Republicans decided upon, Pete Coors, someone who had NEVER ran for public office before...talk about a deer caught in oncoming headlights).
About the being taken seriously...sigh, again either you are persuadable or you are not...sorry.
Jim K. writes,
OK, Orin, the spelling thing was a little petty, you must agree, now that you've done the same thing.
Sigh...fair enough...cheap shot...thanks for calling me on it.
I emjoyed reading your explanation of your views, and appreciate the soul-searching you are doing in discussing this.
Thank you...I have some free time at work, so I can think and write. When I am at home I often feel more like a domestic...sigh.
It was somewhat interesting to see how you view the progression from tolerance to acceptance to legitimization. OK, that would be the progression, I suppose. The question then is, what's wrong with that?
Let's take a heterosexual example then...adultery...goodness, even saying now it sounds so, so...well, quaint. I think we would all agree that it is a good thing that American society tolerates this human weakness...right? It could even be argued that a certain toleration of this weakness is ok so long as it does not become widespread...right? So, does it follow that American society ought to legitimize it?
While you certainly do not see homosexuality as a weakness, many in American society do.
You see discipline as an important part of marriage, and finally tie that down to the task of raising children. But are you saying that everyone needs to raise children?
No...never said; don't believe it. Raising children is not everyones calling in life.
I mentioned before, I have known a lot of Mormons, and I understand something of the importance of bringing those souls to earth, but does everybody have to do it?
No...again.
Are homosexuals worse than, say, infertile or sterile people? I'm thinking, since you haven't mentioned an "infertilist agenda", that maybe they are. And I don't see how your argument supports that conclusion.
This is a common objection and one that is handled thusly...more often than not, when an infertile couple marry they do not know that one or both are sterile. I know of a relative that found themself in this situation. Still marriage serves a societal good in the stabilizing influences that the man and woman will be influenced by, whether or not they ever have children. A homosexual couple (esp male) are sterile by definition. Therein is the difference. If you want more on this try googling Hadley Arkes or Robert P. George, both scholars at distinguished academic institutions.
As for discipline and promiscuity, well, promiscuity is a social problem no matter whether a person is straight or gay.
Read Randy Shilts or Gabriel Rotello and then come back and try making that argument...the levels of promiscuity are not equal.
It's interesting that you seem to think lesbian marriage would be OK, as you think maybe marriage is a way to keep a leash on the male libido.
Uhh, I guess that is one way to put it...
I like that argument, it's got a nice quirky ring to it. It might be an original thought of yours, isn't it?
LOL...no. Sorry, and I do hate to disappoint, but honesty requires that I disclose that source. George Gilder...I think the title is Men and Marriage.
But try this on. There has never been any social standard for gay relationships. Our society pretends they don't exist, and so gay people have to just wing it. What would happen if we tolerated/accepted/legitimized homosexuality, and included them in our plans? What if we expected gay men to behave decently and maintain a commitment to a relationship?
Surely you can't be serious?..."our society pretends they don't exist"??? Jim, you really need to get out more...lol.
I am suggesting that the volatility of gay relationships -- and there are very many lifelong homosexual relationships, but this is an issue -- might be due to the fact that there are not established norms and expectations from the society in general. One might conclude, "They don't care what I do, they'll never accept me anyway, so I might as well indulge myself."
Can I return to this later...yard work is finished, but I need to get cleaned up and take a nap before work.
TTFN,
Orin Ryssman
Orin, here's the question: what's your action item?
Life might be tidier and better organized if everyone was the same, but they're not. So, do you propose that gay people should pretend to be straight? Do you think there is some benefit in society applying constant pressure on gay people to ... not be gay? Are you concerned that homosexuality will spread from the "true" gay people to ambivalent ones, like some kind of fad?
You talk as if gay people were asking for something special, but it appears to me -- and I don't think I'm the only one -- that they only want what the rest of us have. Some people complain about "normalizing" homosexuality, but it seems to me to be completely unnecessary to "abnormalize" it in the first place. How does that make the world a better place?
Oh, and I can't let the "adultery" thing pass. Adultery is the breaking of a promise. It endangers the stability of a family and undermines the deep trust between spouses. That's a whole different thing from falling in love with someone of your own gender, and it is misleading to compare them.
Jim
Orin Ryssman said, "I operate from the assumption that my children ought to learn self-control, a skill that will help them thru their entire adult life. Abstinence education is more consistent with such an objective than the message of "use a condom - they stop the spread of SPERM and GERMS" (well, sort of, since even condoms connot effectively protect against HPV) comprehensive sex ed crowd."
This old broad feels that a lot more self-control is needed to stop in the heat of passion to properly place a condom over the genitals before proceding than to simply avoid sex. Most women I know do not want to put out child after child from wedding day to menopause so within marriage, they use condoms to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
Do you expect abstinence to be used to prevent unplanned pregancies within your children's marriages, Orin?
Aunt Bea
Post a Comment
<< Home