Will same-sex marriage be taught in schools, if it becomes legal in Maine? No — nothing in law, or curriculum, mandates any Maine student be taught about marriage, same-sex or otherwise.
Should same-sex marriage be taught?
Again, the answer is no. Marriage should not be part of a curriculum. Either as a secular tradition or a religious sacrament, marriage is better left to families to teach, or provide examples of.
A school is not responsible for teaching marriage to kids. What should be taught is respect and tolerance for all peoples, a founding tenet of our society. Schools would do our children and civilization a disservice if they couldn't perform this function.
Yet supporters of repealing same-sex marriage say, in a new advertisement, that upholding same-sex marriage would result in "homosexual marriage" taught "whether parents like it or not."
This claim is rooted in a landmark federal case, Parker v. Hurley, which arose when parents in Lexington, Mass., sued their school district after books depicting same-sex relationships were introduced to children, once Massachusetts lawmakers approved same-sex marriages.
A federal court, in 2008, upheld the school's actions. It cited the distinction between the rights of parents and school curricula, saying public schools walk a "tightrope between the many competing constitutional demands made by parents, students, teachers and ... other constituents."
At the heart of that case, however, was coercion. The offended parents claimed that offering these books was akin to indoctrination that intended to instill positive opinions about same-sex marriages in their children, which was counter to the parents' own outlook.
The court found no link between education and indoctrination in Parker v. Hurley. In its decision, the court identified a clear difference between the teachings of tolerance and respect, and the forced affirmation of a relationship some find objectionable.
The first is laudable and the second should be avoided. It was in Massachusetts. And it should be in Maine, regardless of what's decided in November.
In fact, the court's decision states the plaintiff parents were indeed deeply offended, and can seek recourse through their local school boards or state legislature.
This same privilege would be extended to any person in Maine, if materials deemed offensive by parents were presented to children. Insinuating, then, Parker v. Hurley would make "homosexual marriage" a part of Maine academics stretches the facts of the case.
It only would if there was a significant alteration of Maine's current academic curriculum and laws, which the pending marriage legislation does not prescribe.
What Parker v. Hurley says is districts may offer material depicting same-sex relationships, and that offering this material does not infringe the constitutional rights of parents. It doesn't say this material will be taught, or that parents are helpless if the prospect arises.
And neither does Maine law.


Talking about whether or not
Talking about whether or not marriage SHOULD be taught in schools completely misses the point. The reality is that same-sex relationships and sexual orientation issues are being presented to children in schools from the east coast (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/) to the west coast (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/16/BA9C17LD8G.DTL) regardless of the legality same-sex marriage. What same-sex marriage means for parents is that schools can continue to teach children their own views on same-sex relationships, but then the schools can simply dismiss concerned parents by saying, “Sorry, same-sex marriage is legal now.”
What’s significant about the Parker and Wirthlin cases in Massachusetts is that the school successfully defended its assertion that it can teach the children whatever it wants EVEN IF THE PARENTS OBJECT, and that the school has no obligation to even NOTIFY the parents that same-sex relationships are being presented to the children.
Every parent should be aware of the tools and techniques being used in schools to present same-sex relationships and issues of sexual orientation. This includes books: Who’s in a Family (http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/diversity_book.htm); King and King (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/book.html); It’s Elementary (http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html); and Queering Elementary Education (http://www.amazon.com/Queering-Elementary-Education-Sexualities-Curricul...)
Judge for yourself if this constitutes indoctrination.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.IT'S A SCARE TACTIC-NOTHING
IT'S A SCARE TACTIC-NOTHING MORE...
TIME HASN'T CHANGED MUCH FROM WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL AND ALL SCHOOL TAUGHT IN SEX-ED WAS ABOUT OUR VERY OWN BODIES/GENITALIA. THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE PERIOD.
I DO ADMIT THAT AT THIS DAY AND LIVING IN AMERICA-SOME STILL DON'T STAND FOR EQUALITY AND FREEDOM (WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE).
EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My Baptist church
My Baptist church functionally recognizes my civil (governmental) marriage by accepting us as a married couple, as it has no doctrine requiring we be married in that church. My wife’s Catholic Church would not recognize our civil wedding, as it recognizes none preformed outside the church (though to be legally married, Catholics must also complete & file the civil marriage license). All gay and lesbian couples are seeking is to have the same ability to enter civil marriages as mixed-sex couples…and as citizens that right will eventually be affirmed by the courts. This will have no impact on churches, who retain their perogative to recognize whatever they choose.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If they find a book in a
If they find a book in a public school 'offensive', they can always 'steal it' and hold it in the trunk of their car for a ransome!..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Can't wait for
Can't wait for November---this will then be a moot point.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Either way the vote goes,
Either way the vote goes, you're wrong to think it ends in November.
______________________
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yuck, it's disgusting that
Yuck, it's disgusting that we have to waste time, energy and newsprint de-bunking stupid lies made up by the Republicans. In the words of your favorite liar-goddess Sarah Palin, "How about ya quit makin' stuff up?!"
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It should be done here as it
It should be done here as it is in other places in the world, i.e. The Netherlands.
The church may perform (or not perform) marriages as it sees fit. If a church performs a marriage, the state does not recognize that union. It was a religious ceremony, not a civil proceeding. The state recognizing the church's marriage is tantamount to me calling myself a judge, appointing some jurors, pronouncing you guilty, and demanding that the state puts you in jail.
If you want to have the state recognize your union, then you must participate in a civil proceeding. If you want the church to recognize your marriage then you must have a religious ceremony. That the state vests power in a religious institution is ridiculous and possibly unconstitutional.
Marriage is a religious concept. Civil union existed long before marriage did. The pursuit of happiness is a right that should not be impeded by government or the church. Judgement of other people is reserved by God, for himself.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."If you want the church to
"If you want the church to recognize your marriage then you must have a religious ceremony."
*****
Okay, silly question. If the above statement is true, does that mean if a couple of, let's say for the sake of arguement, Baptist decide to forego all the trappings and expense of a "church"wedding and decide to go off to Vegas and elope, the church will not recognize their marriage?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Anyone think it is ironic
Anyone think it is ironic that the TV ads features a MASSACHUSETTES lawyer instead of a MAINE one? And everything he says is couched in either half truths or outright lies. Should we be listening to outsiders, or should we be deciding for ourselves?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The bigots and intolerant
The bigots and intolerant are easily swayed by half truths and outright lies.
______________________
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.heartknows: a religion may
heartknows: a religion may teach creationism, but it has no place in a science class. Teaching that families come in all forms is merely teaching truth. Teaching that some families are less worthy than others is bigotry. Period.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sometimes I think that all
Sometimes I think that all these people have is lies and/or deception to offer in order to enforce their opinions. It's time that we, as citizens stood up to the lies of these folks. If they feel that they want to live in a country ruled by religious doctrine, maybe they should move to country where that is the case. If they feel that their churches should be making the laws, then their churches should lose their tax excempt status.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm thinking Iran would be a
I'm thinking Iran would be a good place...
______________________
Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Saying it won't be "taught"
Saying it won't be "taught" is a misnomer. If presented with any material AND pictures in a textbook form, children will undoubtedly believe that the material is positive, valid, and meritorious...sure sounds like teaching to me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is time for those opposed
It is time for those opposed to marriage equality to stop telling lies. It is time for Maine people to see the truth that our new law is fair to all citizens and all faiths. Those religions that do not recognize same gender marriage do not have to. No religious view should be forced on Maine citizens. This law prevents that. Let's stop the lies and move on to solve Maine's real problems.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.