The new S4MM ad: more ommissions of important facts

Attack the messengers because the message is valid.....

"Calgary Chapel Christian School"
That must be up in Canada somewhere, eh Gerald?

Thanks LMD - I just realized that and came to check. GW

Important facts:
schools teach sex education
gay marriage advocates insist full equality requires gay marriage
schools have to respect equality

Is it not logical then to conclude that when teaching sex education, schools will have to deal equally explicitly with gay sex and hetero-sex?

Gerald:

Fear based on outright deception. That is all they have, trying to play off of what they consider ignorant Mainers.

This doesn't appear too deceptive to me, pretty straight forward and I am certainly not ingnorant enough to think this man is kidding.

David Bohnett's acceptance speech for his Respect Award at the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) Respect Awards in Los Angeles.

Wealthy homosexual activist advises ‘active measures’ against religious opponents

““This is the welcome, unstoppable, and inevitable result of the positive shift in generational attitudes toward being lesbian or gay, supported by the work that’s been done over the last several decades by GLSEN, GLAAD, and countless other groups and activists,” he said.

“We must treat the causes of intolerance and bullying as well as the symptoms of them,” he remarked. “And as we see most often, it is the evangelical and fundamentalist groups that teach homosexuality is a sin, who stand in the way of fairness and equality.

“It’s time we raise our children to be independent thinkers and deeply suspicious of bible beating organized religion.”

Link

Mainemom...any sex education class is optional...There are some now that include information about gays/lesbians. It is not mandatory...

Clearly, the Yes on 1 campaign is pushing fear and bs.

The conservative focus on schools in objecting to "gay marriage" isn't a narrow concern for formal curriculum or even about curriculum per se, although curriculum is relevant.

Schools are the places where children first step outside the homely influence of family to be exposed more broadly to civic culture.

Inevitably, whether school administration intends to indoctrinate civic norms, children learn civic norms in school. Of course, learning civic norms isn't an unwelcome result; a vibrant civil society necessarily requires common institutions, and universal public education, despite its recent decline, has been effective as a civilizing melting pot. The heritage of the United States includes a dynamic balance between the protection of private conscience (of tolerance and reserved rights) and the necessary operation of civic institutions.

And so the objection to "gay marriage" and schools isn't simply that "gay marriage" will be taught in school. The true objection is that "gay marriage" will become the civic norm that is learned in school. As a logical type, an institution called "marriage" cannot exist as two things simultaneously - the union of a man and a woman in private belief and the union of two consenting adults in public discourse.

mainemom gets it. The logic of "gay marriage" means a seismic redefinition of society's most fundamental institution, and will bring the sort of consequences she identifies.

From the article to which Tim linked, we read:

"Bohnett [the homosex activist] declared that “many groups and individuals” are supportive of GLSEN’s “quest for safe schools and full civil equality.”

“On the other hand, there are other groups and individuals who actively work against our efforts, and that our work in education and outreach further emboldens their hatred and zeal to deny us our equal rights. Let us say to these folks; ‘we condemn their intolerance’ and we will expose their hypocrisy, choke off their financial support, and shine the bright light of shame and humiliation on their cowardly prejudices.”"

More "tall rant" words from the self-proclaimed "tolerant" crowd.

Likewise with Tim's previously quoted portion of Bohnett's rants:

"It's time we raise our children to be independent thinkers and deeply suspicious of bible beating organized religion."

My, my, my. Someone has a bee in their Bohnett. If you raise 'independent thinkers', they'll have no need for 'deep suspicions'. I guess I just don't understand his, eh, logic?

Poor Mr. Bohnett. I wonder if his arms get tired while shaking his fists at God.

...shine the bright light of shame and humiliation on their cowardly prejudices.

If one is pursing political power, the best defense is a good offense, especially if the offense includes changing the subject and impugning one's putative opponents, all at once.

"Gay liberation" is undoubtedly a waypoint in the historic Western trend toward greater individual social mobility and a diminishing influence of traditional, hierarchical institutions. In a sense, the acceptance of homosexuals is as much a cultural shift than a legal one. Generally "rights" for gays has meant the expanded application of pre-existing legal rights - especially the right of contract - and the revocation of indecency laws, having been de facto rendered moot, intended to proscribe homosexual behavior. The right to enter into a contract of domestic partnership spings to mind. In my simple-minded view, social acceptance of others is a matter of reciprocal civility. I think the trend of "gay liberation" is beneficial.

In the spirit of acceptance it is tempting, then, to view the "right" to marriage as a logical, indeed inevitable, result of gay liberation. However, such a view misrepresents the nature of marriage. Marriage is a traditional and legal institution of the deepest antiquity and broadest universality. There is no mistaking what marriage is, nor that it operates as an essential centripetal force in the coherence of society. Anyone who blithely predicts the happy consequences of fundamnentally altering it is a rationalizing fool.

Only if one believes that any conceivable legal distinction between the sexes is inherently unjust can one formulate a consistent argument for the "right" of any two adults to marry.

Therefore, the argument for "gay marriage" is not properly an argument about "rights." It is, rather, an argument that marriage is inherently unjust.

The ads for the NO side are out right lies in that they say they are in favor of fairness and equality for ALL Maine families, we all know this is not true. Also the NO ads are using fear to garner votes, yes Charlotte, the fear of being called intolerable and a hater of gays if they do not believe SSM is a good idea and support it. There has been no convincing argument presented by Charlotte, Gerald, Avg. Joe or Domino to support their case of SSM at the exclusion of other lifestyles. At least AVG. Joe said it was because if they were married they could visit their partner in the hospital, not much of a reason IMO. civil unions are fine and I am not sure what rights are not afforded under a civil union that a marriage would allow.

This is my first post on any of the myriad of "gay" threads. I admit to being ambivalent about it. But Emikes words above really struck a chord:

In the spirit of acceptance it is tempting, then, to view the "right" to marriage as a logical, indeed inevitable, result of gay liberation. However, such a view misrepresents the nature of marriage. Marriage is a traditional and legal institution of the deepest antiquity and broadest universality. There is no mistaking what marriage is, nor that it operates as an essential centripetal force in the coherence of society. Anyone who blithely predicts the happy consequences of fundamnentally altering it is a rationalizing fool.

Further, after reading the law, it is only logical to conclude that verification of this bill will not only affect sex ed class but English class, as well. The definition of marriage is now changed, obviously. But so are the definitions of several other words:

Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.

Vocabulary teachers in Maine and teachers in, say, Idaho will be teaching different definitions of the same words, words that have had singular meaning for centuries. How can the word "husband" be gender-neutral? I am voting to veto this proposed law.

I think that the vocabulary lesson issue might be scraping the bottom of the whine barrel.... I always thought that if two guys get married, that they are both "husbands" and if two chicks get married, they would probably both be "wives."

Anyway, I am not for polygamy, or for people marrying their pets, etc... Marriage, to me, is 2 people. It is that way for MOST people, I think, unless we are talking about the MORE-whacked-side of Mormonism, and the like. Gay people are here, and they aren't going to go away and marry the opposite sex because that is what others want of them. They want to settle down with the one they love. If it is such a big problem for those of you who don't consider it natural, well, I feel really bad for you. I think that history will look at you 50 yrs from now much like we look 50 years back and are embarrassed for the idiots who thought that black people shouldn't marry white people. You can say "it's for the children" all you like, but when you look inwards, I bet that isn't what you see. It sounds like a valid excuse on the outset, but really, it is sadly pathetic. I hope you all enjoy your evening. To those of you voting Yes in November: I REALLY hope that it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside to know that a gay person wont be able to marry the one they love because of you. I am sure that you will sleep better knowing that YOUR God MUST be proud of YOU.

Yeah...here is the two sides:

No on 1...let's open up marriage to gay/lesbian couples. Value all families.

Yes on 1..".Gay/lesbian propaganda will indoctrinate our kids...making more of our kids gay/lesbian (fear, fear)."..If that doesn't work ...then push "Gays will destroy the institution of marriage..."

Any of that factual? No.

"civil unions are fine and I am not sure what rights are not afforded under a civil union that a marriage would allow"

Supposedly there are hundreds of provisions in statute or rule that apply to married people, but not to civil unions.

Spouses can file joint tax returns; is that seen as unfair to couples in a civil union? I don't know.

Spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another; is that the brass ring? I don't know.

I do hope Gerald will flesh this out for us. Otherwise SFMM is justified in arguing that the main impact of redefining marriage will be to change what kids learn about civic norms and sex education.

As for sex ed classes being voluntary Charlotte, my experience is that as a middle school parent you get a notice telling you the classes are coming up, and what topics are to be covered. It would take a bit of effort to find out exactly what will be taught when and how. As for high school, there's no notice at all, which makes parental choice problematic. That's been my experience with four kids, now all out of k-12 school.

Maybe schools ought to teach extra algebra instead.

Mainemom..thanks for that information. Now I find a sex ed class without notice is bad policy. We want to educate our kids, not leave it to the schools. I want to know what they will be discussing.

When they get to high school, your kids won't want you to have anything to do with it.
But you can corner the health teacher and find out what you need to know.

Economike:

When was the last time you were at a school board meeting? Just curious.

Islander writes:

The ads for the NO side are out right lies in that they say they are in favor of fairness and equality for ALL Maine families, we all know this is not true.

Please be so kind as to provide just one example. Thanks.

Aren't any of you upset that your friends Bob Emrich and Scott Fish are playing you for dupes? That they try to make Deb Allen out to be some crazed agent with an agenda, when what she really is is a teacher doing the job she was hired to do? That for the second time they trot out a teacher from a private school without identifying her as such?

Haven't you all had enough of this BS?

By not providing the whole truth, Stand for Marriage Maine are lying. To you, and to every one that sees that ad. They are using some of the money you gave them to do so.

Sad, really.

You have an impossible task, Mr.Weinand, if you think you'e going to be able to convince anyone here that Bob or Scott are lying--you see, we're blessed with labor-saving devices known as "long-term memories". We know who's lying to us, and it isn't Mr. Fish or Pastor Bob.

Gerald -

I don't like being called a liar. Neither do I like being accused of treating AMGers as dupes. That's especially true when both accusations are either lies or errors spoken in haste by someone unwilling or unable to check his facts.

If I'm as bad as you say I am - don't post here. I'll take deserved hits and criticisms. But my threshold for B.S. - especially ideological driven B.S. - has its limits.

skf

I don't see the Editor as a bad guy. He is the PR go-to guy. He is the devil's advocate and public defender here. While lots of people would love to see a gay-free Maine, I think that he is just ok with getting paid to show the good side of just a gay-marriage-free-Maine. I never got the impression that HE is anti-gay himself.

If you peruse Mr. Weingand's writings online (and he is a busy little "progressive" camper) you will discover that he is driven almost exclusively by a very far-left ideology. Well, that and disdain for us lesser mortals...

I can see now why he has so little time to respond to threads where he takes an intellectual beating; he is extremely busy posting in places where he won't be expected to defend his Marxist-lite political theology.

Gee Gerald, Lets see The no crowd claims it wants fairness and equality for ALL maine families does this include a family of two men and a women, two women and a man? See a false ad

When was the last time you were at a school board meeting? Just curious.

Gerald -

In case you haven't noticed, the online persona of Economike carefully avoids making arguments from authority. I'm not going to start here. My ideas fail or succeed on their own merits.

Speaking of "lying" you will perhaps recall that one of our first exchanges concerned your charge that those who claimed that EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot for forming a union shop were "lying." This was based on your reading of a WSJ editorial that clearly stated that EFCA would effectively eliminate the secret ballot. Perhaps if you (1) were less inclined to stretch the plain truth to serve your ideological ends and (2) were less inclined to toss around charges of "lying" your charges of "lying" might receive a more respectful and thorough consideration.

Domino wrote:

I think that the vocabulary lesson issue might be scraping the bottom of the whine barrel.... I always thought that if two guys get married, that they are both "husbands" and if two chicks get married, they would probably both be "wives."

I'm not sure why Domino thinks this is whining but she needs to reconsider that last part of the statement. Whether Domino thinks that two married guys are both "husbands," that is not what the bill states. "Gender-neutral" is plain language. Therefore, if a gay couple labels themselves as husband and wife, that is also OK. Confusing, isn't it? The words become meaningless. Words that have meant something specific for centuries.

Then there is this:

Anyway, I am not for polygamy, or for people marrying their pets, etc... Marriage, to me, is 2 people.

So, then, in a few years if the law were expanded to include some number of people and/or their pets (in the interest of fairness) you would be against that? If so, you will expose yourself to comments like this:

To those of you voting Yes in November: I REALLY hope that it makes you all warm and fuzzy inside to know that [any] person wont be able to marry the one[s] they love because of you. I am sure that you will sleep better knowing that YOUR God MUST be proud of YOU.

Have a nice day, Domino. And save your insults. They diminish you argument.

It is a political campaign. Do I believe Yes on 1 is misrepresenting...sure. Do I support their statements...no. Is AMG promoting Yes on 1...yes. Do they treat both sides equally no.

Just the way it goes.

I think that history will look at you 50 yrs from now much like we look 50 years back and are embarrassed for the idiots who thought that black people shouldn't marry white people. You can say "it's for the children" all you like, but when you look inwards, I bet that isn't what you see. It sounds like a valid excuse on the outset, but really, it is sadly pathetic.

Domino -

In other words, you believe that there is no person arguing against gay marriage who isn't motivated by crude (i.e. idiotic, pathetic) prejudice. Correct?

The poll numbers keep dropping and the yes on 1 folks keep digging. Come on folks, you only have a few weeks to change this conversation before you lose.

Scott:

Of interest is that you attack me for name calling, but failed to actually address the two points of omission that I highlight.

So please, if you would be so kind, explain to your readers why this latest ad featuring Jen Cyr does not identify her as a teacher at a private school (this is the second such omission, the first one with Charla Bansely).

And second, and more importantly, explain why this latest ad does not identify Deb Allen as a sex education teacher. With such knowledge, the description of here that is in the ad, of how she talks "thoroughly and explicitly" about sexuality, doesn't have the same impact, does it?

Someone at the campaign that you represent made these two decisions to omit pertinent facts. Such omissions are the same as lying. You play an important role in the campaign, and so you are part of it.

While you're at, would you please explain why S4MM paid Bob Emrich $5,000 in consulting fees? Just curious how that works, since he is listed as a "PRIMARY FUNDRAISERS AND DECISION MAKERS" on the PAC registration form.