NYT Nails the "Ex-Gay" Hoax
This one made me laugh out loud a couple of times, a cool editorial by Dan Savage in the New York Times. He talks about straight actors playing gay guys in Brokeback Mountain, and about the evangelicals complaining that a gay actor is playing a straight missionary in End of the Spear. He gets in some good ones -- but really, it's too easy, isn't it? The hypocrisy is so near the surface, exposing it is not really like ... exposing anything. It's just like pointing out the obvious.
Unfortunately, we live in times where it is necessary to point out the obvious.
I have talked before about the "ex-gay" hoax, which is likely to figure in our MCPS sex-ed curriculum discussion, especially since PFOX has a representative on the citizens committee. Generally, my comments have been something like this: imagine what it's like to be the poor girl who marries a guy who "used to be gay."
For some reason, certain people think it would be just great if gay men would marry women. How hard is it to see the problem with that? I mean, really, it's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the world. Ever.
So I had to laugh at this NYT editorial. I'll start near the end, where he's talking about the "ex-gay movement":
That's my question, too. Imagine meeting your daughter's new fiance, imagine how you like it when they tell you (all smiles and happiness) that he "used to be gay." Is this what you want for your little angel?
The problem is that this is real life. It's easy to see the "theory" of it. Certain people don't believe anybody should be gay. So some Real Smart Person came up with a solution to the problem: why don't all the gay people just act straight? They can declare themselves straight, marry someone of the opposite sex ... see how easy? No gay people, no problem. But in reality you get down to a particular guy, dragging a particular girl into a fake relationship, and man, this is just a bad idea.
This point seems so obvious, I can't believe we live in a world where it needs to be said.
Unfortunately, we live in times where it is necessary to point out the obvious.
I have talked before about the "ex-gay" hoax, which is likely to figure in our MCPS sex-ed curriculum discussion, especially since PFOX has a representative on the citizens committee. Generally, my comments have been something like this: imagine what it's like to be the poor girl who marries a guy who "used to be gay."
For some reason, certain people think it would be just great if gay men would marry women. How hard is it to see the problem with that? I mean, really, it's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the world. Ever.
So I had to laugh at this NYT editorial. I'll start near the end, where he's talking about the "ex-gay movement":
This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood.
What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable.
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys
That's my question, too. Imagine meeting your daughter's new fiance, imagine how you like it when they tell you (all smiles and happiness) that he "used to be gay." Is this what you want for your little angel?
The problem is that this is real life. It's easy to see the "theory" of it. Certain people don't believe anybody should be gay. So some Real Smart Person came up with a solution to the problem: why don't all the gay people just act straight? They can declare themselves straight, marry someone of the opposite sex ... see how easy? No gay people, no problem. But in reality you get down to a particular guy, dragging a particular girl into a fake relationship, and man, this is just a bad idea.
Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce.
If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.
This point seems so obvious, I can't believe we live in a world where it needs to be said.
posted by JimK at 4:08 PM
51 Comments:
Well, Jim, we girls have been pointing this out for quite some time, but most men, and it's men who run the fundamentalist operations, simply are blind to the issue. I've seen plenty of unnecessary misery when a marriage breaks up over a gender transition, especially when the gender issue was kept secret and is then seen as a betrayal. Let people live their own lives, openly and honestly, without keeping secrets about sexuality and gender. Let young adults know who they are, and present themselves to potential partners, as confidently and securely as they can. Parents want their children happy and secure, not lying to themselves and others. Just spend sometime talking to such parents or spouses.
"The hypocrisy is so near the surface, exposing it is not really like ... exposing anything. It's just like pointing out the obvious."
Not to me. Who are the hypocrites? Could you explain for we who exist on a slightly different plane of consciousness from you?
"I have talked before about the "ex-gay" hoax, which is likely to figure in our MCPS sex-ed curriculum discussion, especially since PFOX has a representative on the citizens committee. Generally, my comments have been something like this: imagine what it's like to be the poor girl who marries a guy who "used to be gay.""
Unless the guy is hiding his past, what business is this of yours. Let the girl decide for herself. I can tell you, I know certain marriages like this and the couples seem perfectly happy. All of them are active, churched Christians though so maybe there happiness is derived from something other than an act performed two or three times a week for a few minutes. Our society really has made sex to central to our fulfillment.
"For some reason, certain people think it would be just great if gay men would marry women."
No, they think men should marry women. Men with gay preferences need to abandon them. It can be done. Of course, the longer they've been involved, the harder the sinful desires will be to overcome. That's why we need to be careful to not teach anything that might start young kids down this tragic path.
"How hard is it to see the problem with that? I mean, really, it's gotta be one of the dumbest ideas in the world. Ever."
No, teaching kids a fairy tale version of the gay lifestyle is.
"So I had to laugh at this NYT editorial. I'll start near the end, where he's talking about the "ex-gay movement":
This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood."
What is this guy talking about here? Maybe some who find this hilarious know. Can you enlighten the rest of us?
"What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable."
So gay guys are all effeminate and need masculine lesbians to marry? Gee, I guess this is funny.
"Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight."
They know they can.
"If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes,"
who said that?
"do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys"
Probably not. But they wouldn't want them to marry an ex-bank robber either but that doesn't mean I want to promote the idea that bank robbers can't change.
"That's my question, too. Imagine meeting your daughter's new fiance, imagine how you like it when they tell you (all smiles and happiness) that he "used to be gay." Is this what you want for your little angel?"
Well, it would be a problem. Another reason kids should be told to consider when they think about trying out this lifestyle. They'll be forever stigmatized.
"The problem is that this is real life. It's easy to see the "theory" of it."
This is what you're having so much trouble with, Jim. The truth is if kids decide to try this gay stuff, the consequences could be tragic and you want them taught a class that hides this truth from them. If a kid is considering this, they shouldn't go into a class that tells them it's just another fun and crazy way to live.
"Certain people don't believe anybody should be gay."
Most people think that.
"So some Real Smart Person came up with a solution to the problem: why don't all the gay people just act straight? They can declare themselves straight, marry someone of the opposite sex ... see how easy?"
No, we're suggesting a real change.
"No gay people, no problem. But in reality you get down to a particular guy, dragging a particular girl into a fake relationship, and man, this is just a bad idea."
The idea is all yours.
"Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce."
That's true. A person with this past might not be a good candidate for marriage. Most evangelical and all Catholic churches have extensive marriage counseling classes required before they'll marry anyone. They'd find out if this is a problem.
"If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters."
Oops. We've decided as a society, we don't want that. And what is this we?
"Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies.
This point seems so obvious, I can't believe we live in a world where it needs to be said."
That's just what Mr Kimball used to say to Oliver Douglas.
This op-ed and Anon's response ("where's the hypocrisy?")highlights a very significant problem. It's not enough that he wants to stigmatize all gays, calling them perverts and fetishists, trotting out all the Freudian dogma he doesn't for a moment truly believe in. There are plenty of people out there who have what Mickey Kaus recently called a "visceral surface response" to homosexuality (fewer than had a similar response to inter-racial marriage, so I guess that's progress of a sort).
By not showing any empathy or compassion for all the straight women out there married to gay men, he clarifies the totalitarian mindset that undergirds his movement. It reminds me of the same mindset that was in control of hundreds of millions of people during the 20th century, in the guise of fascism and communism. It was Lenin, I believe, who first said, "You have to break eggs to make an omelet." So what if millions of real people have to be killed in the service of a greater good. Now the totalitarians are, once again, religious fanatics, in the Arab and Persian worlds as well as in the redoubts of fundamentalist Christianity at home. Who cares about all those straight women who will suffer when we encourage (force, shame) gay men to marry them? They're a small price to pay for ridding the world of the obvious reminders to men of the threat of male sexuality in general. That the fundy crowd would be misogynistic as well as homophobic is not surprising, since homophobia has its roots in misogyny anyway.
Then again, Jim, you asked if they would want that for their daughters. No, they wouldn't. And just as Dan Quayle famously said he wanted to ban abortion but would support his daughter if she desired one for herself, and just as all the fundamentalists will flock to any medical cure derived from blastocystic stem cell research regardless of their religious beliefs, I would bet Anon would truly not want his daughter to marry an "ex-gay."
The again, maybe he would. I'm just guessing.
Anonymous said:
"Men with gay preferences need to abandon them. It can be done. Of course, the longer they've been involved, the harder the sinful desires will be to overcome. That's why we need to be careful to not teach anything that might start young kids down this tragic path."
So are you suggesting that young kids who find themselves being attracted to members of the same sex just... abandon those feelings? How? Through puberty do you expect them to change their hormonal fluids? Do you think that teaching young straight kids about homosexuality could lead them to experiment with same-sex sex play?
Anonymous said:
"No, teaching kids a fairy tale version of the gay lifestyle is."
What do you think is a fairy tale version of the of "gay lifestyle"? The one that many couples are trying to live but are finding it difficult due to society's oppression?
Anonymous said:
"Probably not. But they wouldn't want them to marry an ex-bank robber either but that doesn't mean I want to promote the idea that bank robbers can't change."
That's a flawed analogy: a bank robber has to have robbed a bank to be called such; a homosexual doesn't have to do anything to be one.
Anonymous said:
"Well, it would be a problem. Another reason kids should be told to consider when they think about trying out this lifestyle. They'll be forever stigmatized."
A gay person doesn't need to have ever participated in the so-called "gay lifestyle" to be gay. Gay people are stigmatised regardless of whether they're virgins, celibate, closeted, open, whatever; it doesn't matter.
Anonymous said:
"This is what you're having so much trouble with, Jim. The truth is if kids decide to try this gay stuff, the consequences could be tragic and you want them taught a class that hides this truth from them. If a kid is considering this, they shouldn't go into a class that tells them it's just another fun and crazy way to live."
What "truth" are you're referring to? What is this "gay stuff" you're referring to? Considering what?
You really don't realise how hurtful and offensive your comments can be.
"So are you suggesting that young kids who find themselves being attracted to members of the same sex just... abandon those feelings?"
yes
"How?"
resistance of the will to temptation
"Through puberty do you expect them to change their hormonal fluids?"
Hormones cause sexual desires, there is no evidence that they direct them. There is every reason to believe that who and how you like to express sexuality is a matter of taste.
"Do you think that teaching young straight kids about homosexuality could lead them to experiment with same-sex sex play?"
In certain situations, yes.
"What do you think is a fairy tale version of the of "gay lifestyle"?"
That you can live a homosexual life without negative consequences and that it is the equivalent of heterosexuality.
"The one that many couples are trying to live but are finding it difficult due to society's oppression?"
Yes, the random promiscuity and lack of self-restraint is all society's fault.
"That's a flawed analogy: a bank robber has to have robbed a bank to be called such; a homosexual doesn't have to do anything to be one."
Most people probably don't want their daughters to marry someone who wants to rob banks either. Still, I think if they resist, the feeling will go away.
"A gay person doesn't need to have ever participated in the so-called "gay lifestyle" to be gay. Gay people are stigmatised regardless of whether they're virgins, celibate, closeted, open, whatever; it doesn't matter."
People are free to choose who they want to associate with. If they act against the norms of society, they take their own risk. It's all part of living in a free society. Freedom doesn't mean entitlement to society's approval.
"What "truth" are you're referring to? What is this "gay stuff" you're referring to? Considering what?"
Any truth that doesn't asdvance the gay agenda was left out of the constitutionally-flawed Fishback revision.
"You really don't realise how hurtful and offensive your comments can be."
I'm personally in favor of "live and let live". You guys are pushing it by demanding society's endorsement.
You guys are pushing it by demanding society's endorsement.
Anon, I think you are trying to pretend there is a different issue here. TTF isn't trying to "demand" anybody's "endorsement" of anything. We just want the school district to teach the facts. Just look at the curricula that are posted on the righthand side of this page, and tell me where the "endorsement" is.
JimK
You've flatly refused to support teaching the facts. You support the constitutionally-flawed Fishback revisions which chose to teach the "opinions" of a couple of associations rather the findings of scientific studies. The revisions were rejected by a federal judge for viewpoint discrimination- that's a fancy word for propaganda.
"TTF isn't trying to "demand" anybody's "endorsement" of anything. We just want the school district to teach the facts. Just look at the curricula that are posted on the righthand side of this page, and tell me where the "endorsement" is."
Aside from the thinly veiled attempt to alter the perception of young people toward homosexuality by omitting facts in the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions, TTF also has used this blog to advocate all kinds of positions which endorse and affirm the homosexual lifestyle.
anonymous said, "You support the constitutionally-flawed Fishback revisions which chose to teach the "opinions" of a couple of associations rather the findings of scientific studies."
__________
First anonymous there is no such thing as "Fishback revisions." There was a whole committee not just Fishback. And just what were the opinions of a couple of associations instead of scientific studies in the whole past revision? Now try to focus anonymous and go beyond judge's narrow temporary order.
freebird
I'm focusing on the curriculum that Jim keeps pointing us to. It's disingenuous and from the comment you just made, I surmise you haven't read it.
"First anonymous there is no such thing as "Fishback revisions." There was a whole committee not just Fishback."
It's customary to name a document after the Chairman of the committee responsible- like I do with the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions. Fishback has taken full responsibility and has endorsed the final product of his committee- constitutionally flawed as it was. He obviously had more influence over the constitutionally flawed final product than any other member of the committee. Indeed, some members had no influence at all for the constitutionally flawed document.
Falwell's Liberty Counsel lawyers chose to settle the lawsuit with MCPS. If the curriculum revisions were truly "constitutionally flawed," Liberty Counsel would have continued the lawsuit and the judge would have ruled that MCPS's "viewpoint discrimination" meant the school system must include PFOX/CRC's viewpoints in the curriculum. That did not happen. Instead, Liberty Counsel went home to Florida with tens of thousands of our tax-payer dollars that won't be spent to educate our children.
The settlement agreement does prohibit certain topics from discussion in the MCPS health curriculum as follows:
"MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum...will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects. This would not preclude a general acknowledgement that there may be differing religious views on some of the topics discussed in the Revisions without discussion of what those differing beliefs are, which religious groups hold those beliefs, or which religious groups are supportive of homosexuality."
The only topics specifically excluded from the curriculum per the settlement agreement are "religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions" because teaching religious beliefs in public schools has already repeatedly been found to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Christine
"Falwell's Liberty Counsel lawyers chose to settle the lawsuit with MCPS. If the curriculum revisions were truly "constitutionally flawed," Liberty Counsel would have continued the lawsuit and the judge would have ruled that MCPS's "viewpoint discrimination" meant the school system must include PFOX/CRC's viewpoints in the curriculum."
This is untrue. The suit wasn't continued because the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions were discarded by the county. "Viewpoint discrimination" is the assertion that certain ideas have been established as facts when they haven't. This could still be the subject of litigation if a new curriculum is produced that contains these same errors.
"Instead, Liberty Counsel went home to Florida with tens of thousands of our tax-payer dollars that won't be spent to educate our children."
This is a particularly hypocritical point for TTF to focus on, considering their support for groups like ACLU and GLAAD, who particpate in litigation regularly. How about the parents in Dover, PA with their petty complaint. Didn't that take money that could have been used to educate children? Is TTF in favor of doing away with the judiciary?
Anon, do yourself a favor. Go find out what "viewpoint discrimination" is, ok? This wasn't even a good guess.
JimK
anonymous said, "It's customary to name a document after the Chairman of the committee responsible- like I do with the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions."
Wrong anonymous..only you do that. There was no such thing as "constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions."
We know you believe that anonymous as unintelligent as you sound but all other intelligent folks do not believe what you say. They have actually read the TEMPORARY order and know exactly what that means and know that a full CAC was in place.
freebird
"Anon, do yourself a favor. Go find out what "viewpoint discrimination" is, ok? This wasn't even a good guess."
Jimbo, do yourself a favor. Abandon your courageous campaign against truth. It's not too late.
"Wrong anonymous..only you do that. There was no such thing as "constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions."
We know you believe that anonymous as unintelligent as you sound but all other intelligent folks do not believe what you say. They have actually read the TEMPORARY order and know exactly what that means and know that a full CAC was in place."
Ah, but the Fishback revisions were so seriously flawed from a constitutional standpoint that the judge said he had to issue the order to prevent irreparable damage to the constitutional rights of students. Shame on TTF for continuing its support of this nasty piece of work.
Anon, the judge issued a 10-day temporary restraining order, since the classes were going to be pilot-tested in a few days. His ruling meant that he felt that there was a chance that a real lawsuit would find the plaintiff's arguments valid. The ruling gave the two sides an opportunity to work out their differences, which they did.
He did not rule that the curriculum was unconstitutional, he only ruled that it might be unconstitutional. The judge wrote, "This case pits a potential loss of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedoms against what amounts to mere inconvenience to Defendants."
That was ... a potential loss.
JimK
he also mentioned the likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail
that's what gave the school board the willies
they weren't aware that the Fishback revisions were constitutionally flawed until they read the judge's ruling
they obviously didn't read it
That's right, Anon, "the likelihood" they would prevail. Of course, he'd only heard one side of the case, but he did rule that there was a likelihood they could prevail.
Note, that's not the same as actually prevailing.
JimK
Well, since the elimination of the constitutionally flawed Fishback was achieved, they prevailed.
I don't what league you play in, but in most leagues when the opponent forfeits, that's a check in the "W" column.
Anon, you said that the judge ruled that it was unconstitutional, and that it promoted "viewpoint discrimination." Call it a W if that makes you happy, it was a win for those Florida lawyers, very clever. But the judge did not rule that the curriculum was unconstitutional.
JimK
"it was a win for those Florida lawyers,"
The big winners were the students of Montgomery County. Their liberal parents were stopped from pushing this constitutionally flawed Fishback revision on them.
anonymous said,The big winners were the students of Montgomery County.
No they were not(winners) as the majority of the kids that were to take the curriculum had no problem whatsoever neither did those before that..blah, blah, blah.
Oh I guess anonymous you forgot those little items.
freebird
They won because, at least for now, they won't be burdened with a deceptive and misleading curriculum.
The delay itself may well have saved lives.
yes and pigs fly....
only you believe that anonymous or maybe the CRC crew who need history/civic lessons
freebird
"only you believe that anonymous or maybe the CRC crew who need history/civic lessons"
Why don't you give us a little history/cicivcs lesson? We're dying to benefit from your extensive knowledge.
Anon,
I am honored to have the proposed revised curriculum to be associated with my name. So is everyone else in my family. The BOE unanimously voted in Nov. 2004 to pilot those revisions. And, contrary to your suggestions that the information to be provided was just "the 'opinions' of a couple of associations," but, rather was based on the considered judgment of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and every other mainstream medical and mental health professional group in the United States. But if you wish to continue to belittle, for example, the American Medical Association, go ahead. We all can draw our conclusions.
As to the legal questions, we need to be very clear: There were two aspects of the curriculum that Judge Williams said he thought were unconstitutional. First, he saw a violation of the First Amendment's requirement of separation of church and state because three teacher background resources made comments on the wisdom of certain denomination's views on homosexuality. Court’s decision at pp. 16-19. The BOE’s lawyers failed adequately to point out that those resources were not part of the curriculum and all teachers know they are not to express theological views in the classroom (they only had a few days to write a brief defending against 80 plus pages of factual and legal assertions). See BOE Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO Request, at pp. 8-9. Still, even if that had been pointed out to the court, the court conceivably could have concluded that somehow those comments in the resources might bleed into the classroom. Those resources were recommended by MCPS Staff (and accepted by the Citizens Advisory Committee) for the purpose of providing teachers background on the simple statement in the curriculum that different religions have different views on sexual behaviors and that there are even differences among people of the same religion. MCPS Staff and the CAC knew that teachers knew not to discuss theology in the health class; Judge Williams apparently did not understand that. (I have not seen the oral argument transcript, so I don’t know if the BOE attorney made this point; it was not in the BOE’s memorandum of law.) Because those resources (which were accepted by the CAC in the winter of 2004) were unnecessary in light of more recent, widespread public discussions of these differences, MCPS decided to drop those teacher background resources, thus mooting that part of the case. Indeed, immediately after the court's decision, I recommended that they be dropped.
The other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional was its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present “all sides” of the subject. Court’s decision at pp. 19-21. Sort of like saying that if a school system is to teach about the Holocaust, it must also present the views of Holocaust deniers. That ruling could never have withstood an appeal, even in the most conservative federal courts. The BOE was faced with a problem: If it fought the lawsuit, the matter likely would have been tied up in litigation for years, preventing MCPS from implementing the needed revisions. Instead, the BOE decided to start over, making the lawsuit moot, and forcing the plaintiffs to accept a settlement wherein the BOE reserved its right to decide what would and would not be in the health curriculum.
By the way, Anon, if you would like to debate that last constitutional point, take a look at the court decision cited Judge Williams in support of his view that the revised curriculum constituted unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination." Court’s opinion at p. 20. That case was Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), which did not involve a school’s choice of curriculum but, rather dealt with UVA’s policies on funding student publications. Under UVA’s rules, any student publication that met certain neutral criteria could get funding. Rosenberger met all the criteria, but the University turned him down because the publication was Christian-themed. The University feared that if it funded the publication, it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, finding that the University’s decision constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the freedom of speech portions of the First Amendment. I agree with the majority in Rosenberger. But there is a huge difference between a public forum – which was the case in Rosenberger – and curriculum choices, which is what last year’s lawsuit was about. The BOE stood its ground on that issue. If CRC/PFOX did not like it, they could have declined to sign on to the settlement agreement. They agreed to withdraw the lawsuit, it seems to me, because they knew the ground upon which they stood legally was quicksand.
Finally, your statement that “viewpoint discrimination is a fancy word for propaganda” suggests that you have not read Judge Williams’ decision. Not only did he not condemn the actual contents of the curriculum, but he rejected the notion, set forth by CRC/ PFOX that there were “increased health risks to students once they receive the ‘pro-gay’ message. . . . [T]he Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite. . . . Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require more than a few logical steps for this Court to find that MCPS students presented with the Revised Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex – adhering to the Revised Curriculum’s message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship.” (Court’s opinion at pp. 14-15)
"Sort of like saying that if a school system is to teach about the Holocaust, it must also present the views of Holocaust deniers."
This is a far-fetched simile, David. The Holocaust happened, historical proof is available.
That homosexuality is innate and beyond resistance has not been proven and scientists agree that it hasn't been proven.
That homosexuality is not a disease is a value judgment and one the public schools have no place ruling on.
Your bringing such an emotional topic into the conversation and exploiting a supremely tragic event is really a disreputable debating strategy.
"The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, finding that the University’s decision constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the freedom of speech portions of the First Amendment."
Just because the case the judge referred to was a different manifestation of viewpoint discrimination doesn't change anything. The school board was discriminating between views by approving the Constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions not facts. Again, they were discriminating between views not facts.
"The BOE stood its ground on that issue. If CRC/PFOX did not like it, they could have declined to sign on to the settlement agreement. They agreed to withdraw the lawsuit, it seems to me, because they knew the ground upon which they stood legally was quicksand."
Or maybe they agreed with the process if it was conducted appropriately and gave it another shot. They can sue again if the two major constitutional problems still exist that were the problem in the Constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions. Remember, CRC has aspirations to eventually control the school board so they wouldn't want to place hindrances on its ability to act.
"Not only did he not condemn the actual contents of the curriculum, but he rejected the notion, set forth by CRC/ PFOX that there were “increased health risks to students once they receive the ‘pro-gay’ message. . . . [T]he Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite. . . . Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated."
Just because he had a viewpoint doesn't mean he didn't recognize viewpoint discrimination. No one on this side has ever called Judge Williams a conservative. We just think he's a smart and fair judge.
Thanks anyway for recognizing the two constitutional problems mentioned in the judge's opinion. Some of your friends here try to pretend the constitutional issues didn't exist.
No ... some people here pointed out that the judge didn't rule that the curriculum was unconstitutional. I think all of us would agree that religious opinions and judgments have no place in the classroom. They could easily have been thrown out, while pilot testing went forward.
JimK
Next time the Montgomery County Board of Education will not be blind-sided by a lawsuit. Next time, the BOE (and others who support the BOE) will be ready.
"No ... some people here pointed out that the judge didn't rule that the curriculum was unconstitutional. I think all of us would agree that religious opinions and judgments have no place in the classroom. They could easily have been thrown out, while pilot testing went forward."
Here's what David said, Jim:
"The other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional was its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present “all sides” of the subject."
David is saying here that the judge said the curriculum is likely unconstitutional. Granted, David does disgree with that but it does agree that the judge said that.
Coupled with the blatant religious discrimination, the viewpoint discrimination makes the Fishback revisions constitutionally flawed. At least in the humble opinion of the only court to have ruled on the matter.
"Next time the Montgomery County Board of Education will not be blind-sided by a lawsuit. Next time, the BOE (and others who support the BOE) will be ready."
The dear innocent Board. They had no idea that someone might actually sue them. Please.
They can hire all the lawyers they want, they won't be able to overturn the constitutional rights of students in Montgomery County.
David is saying here that the judge said the curriculum is likely unconstitutional.
The operative word here, Anon, is "likely." The judge did not rule whether the curriculum was or was not constitutional. He found grounds, in hasty proceedings, for thinking that it might be unconstitutional. Hence the TRO.
JimK
Play games with word if you will, Jim. The school board dropped it because the wording of Judge William's decision made it clear they would likely lose.
Go ahead and take solace because he said likely instead of definitely. You notice the school board wanted to make sure he didn't have a chance to say definitely.
Anon, I'm no lawyer, but I think it's like the difference between being indicted and convicted. Indictment just means they think there's enough evidence to try you. That's all this was. by cleverly timing it, the Liberty Counsel lawyers were able to postpone the curriculum for a whole year.
JimK
Liberals always try to console themselves with the thought they were just out-clevered. Bush only won (twice!) because that sneaky Karl Rove out-foxed them. (come to think about it, a couple of months ago, you all thought he was going to jail).
Oh, the elaborate mental gymnastics liberals will perform just to avoid admitting that they were just plain wrong.
anonymous said,"Oh, the elaborate mental gymnastics liberals will perform just to avoid admitting that they were just plain wrong."
Poor anonymous getting exposed to logical thinking over a TTF. It apparently suits you as you like it here so much to hang out day after day post after post.
See how inclusive TTF'rs are and we know you did not find that at CRC since you are here and not there.
Now into the delusion territory, from anonymous, "The school board dropped it because the wording of Judge William's decision made it clear they would likely lose."
freebird
Dear Anonymous
You persist in this position that initial same-gender attractions are fleeting, and that they can be ended by force of will, by sustained resistance, by not indulging them.
Let me tell you, when I was younger (not much younger), I agreed wioth you that being gay was abnormal, sinful, to be resisted at all costs. I myself from the earliest manifestation of same-gender attractions resisted them, and tried to end them by whatever means I could find for 24 years (including some extreme means, and certainly by seeking out all the help I could find). It didn't work; repeat, it didn't work. 24 years (since age 11) of persistent, desparate strunggle didn't end same-gender attractions.
Changing sexual orientation or avoiding same-gender attractions by force of will, by prayer, by therapy, by aversion therapy, by shock treatments, it's all a myth. Why don't you believe the people who tell you this? Even most people in the ex-gay movement say you can never end all same-gender attractions, and tell their clients (prayer-group members) that the best most can achieve is celibacy). It's a myth. Go out and talk to people who've been through it. I get so tired of you sometimes.
Robert
I bet anonymous also thinks that "man hugging" therapy Richard Cohen does works too.
freebird
It sounds like we all agree that religious beliefs should not be part of the curriculum, as does MCPS. While discussion of those beliefs was to inform teachers only and was never intended to be brought into the classroom, there is no longer any even arguable confusion on this point. The teacher resources that included religious beliefs have been excluded. Both sides to the lawsuit signed the settlement agreement which included the statement, "MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum...will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects."
Judge Williams' Memorandum Opinion stated, "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...'... As such, the Establishment Clause "was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State." ....In this case, Plaintiffs allege that the Revised Curriculum discriminates between religious sects in that it prefers those sects that are friendly to the homosexual lifestyle....The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God's judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground."
As David pointed out, the other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional -- its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present "all sides" of the subject -- would never have withstood further legal scrutiny.
PFOX/CRC feel their view about sexual orientation and behavior should also be included in a new revised curriculum. The problem is that their view is fundamentally a religious belief, namely that homosexual behavior is a sin in all circumstances. Putting this religious belief in the curriculum would conflict with the Establishment Clause as discussed by Judge Williams.
Christine
"As David pointed out, the other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional -- its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present "all sides" of the subject -- would never have withstood further legal scrutiny."
This insult to Judge Williams is pure fantasy on David's part. There isn't any overwhelming data to support the viewpoint of the constitutionally flawed Fishback revisions and it conflicts with the mores of most societies- future and past. You won't be allowed to present this moral position as if it were fact.
"PFOX/CRC feel their view about sexual orientation and behavior should also be included in a new revised curriculum."
No, they don't. They believe the new curriculum should state the basic facts about homosexuality including the consequences of choosing this behavior. It also shouldn't make unproven assertions that would tend to encourage sympathy for the lifestyle.
"The problem is that their view is fundamentally a religious belief, namely that homosexual behavior is a sin in all circumstances. Putting this religious belief in the curriculum would conflict with the Establishment Clause as discussed by Judge Williams."
Their view isn't a problem because they don't want it taught. The view that homosexuality is immoral is not a solely religious view anyway. Virtually all cultures have considered it so. Just because virtually all religions agree doesn't make it a religious belief. All non-Marxists societies consider stealing immoral. So do all religions. Doesn't mean that the government can't prosecute bank robbers. The type of fuzzy thinking represented by Cilly will be history as soon as the Roberts court gets a case like this.
"As David pointed out, the other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional would never have withstood further legal scrutiny."
David's experience is with the activist courts that have predominated for the last several decades. Times are changing- we're going back to times when the Constitution was held in respect.
Sorry, Cilly. You'll have to get used to it.
I said, "PFOX/CRC feel their view about sexual orientation and behavior should also be included in a new revised curriculum."
Anon responded, "No, they don't...
...Their view isn't a problem because they don't want it taught."
Sorry Anon, you're mistaken. Maybe you don't think PFOX/CRC want their view about sexual orientation and behavior included in the curriculum, but someone you publicly yet anonymously support disagrees.
Richard Cohen is the President of PFOX. Here's how he began his public comment to the MCPS Board of Education on July 6, 2005:
"Thank you. My name is Richard Cohen. I'm the Board President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays. I would like to apologize for any inconvenience or expense we have caused the Board. We simply want our voice and views incorporated in the new sex education curriculum."
Christine
Don't know the context but I think he actually meant it shouldn't have unsupported views about possibility of conversion from homosexuality.
Don't think PFOX and CRC are synonymous anyway.
"Don't know the context" but you keep on yapping anyway.
That says it all.
Well, if you're saying no one can have an opinion unless they have memorized every statement made by every character in this operatic circus, there's not going to be much democracy left in this county.
I'm just pointing out the difference between an informed opinion and a wild guess.
Well, I do know that CRC promotes teaching only factual information not opinions like TTF. That's wild!
christine said "The Court does not understand why it is necessary, in attempting to achieve the goals of advocating tolerance and providing health-related information, Defendants must offer up their opinion on such controversial topics as whether homosexuality is a sin, whether AIDS is God's judgment on homosexuals, and whether churches that condemn homosexuality are on theologically solid ground."
yet therefore the defendants have no argument at all-
the only reason to be against homosexuals, the only real moral ground to be against it, is religious. For example, there is no reason to legalize rape, unless there was some crazy cult who wanted to rape people. That's a horrible idea, but basically what this case is. The"family values" evangelicals seem to feel that their moral code based on a mistranslated and over-interpreted book of myths should be forced on people, and that it is somehow morally correct to try to get into other people's love lives. Gay people can no more "act straight" than you could act gay. For somebody who is truly gay, being with a woman (or man) would be as disgusting as if you were "with" a member of the same sex.
I'm sorry- but just cause your arbitrary moral code is against something is not a reason to be against it. You need something based on facts- not bullshit.
Post a Comment
<< Home