(no subject)
Feb. 5th, 2008 01:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Barack Obama, June 5, 2006
And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Just in case y'all think he's a friend to the gays.
And I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Just in case y'all think he's a friend to the gays.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:48 pm (UTC)"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.
However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:48 pm (UTC)p.s. I love your Juno icon. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:49 pm (UTC)Thanks:)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 09:10 pm (UTC)It wouldn't have been right if I'd been exempted from learning animal anatomy all together. Or if I'd been removed from class any time it was mentioned that some people kill animals. The first amendment should only allow exceptions when a lesson specifically asks someone to engage in a forbidden practice. No one's religion forbids them from knowing that there are different kinds of families (or knowing that animals are killed, or knowing the words to different prayers used around the world, or being in the same room as people pledging allegiance to a flag.)
So, if people object to their kid reading King and King, they need to prove that 1) they consistently practice a religious belief system that specifically forbids members from hearing about the existence of same-sex couples and 2) they have another way that they're willing to have their children learn about the required curriculum, which is that some families have same-sex parents.
Obviously, they can't do this. In the David Parker decision, the courts pretty much said that the Parkers and their cohorts don't actually demonstrate a religious belief that forbids knowing about the existence of same-sex families, particularly given that the people involved in the uproar are people who talk about gay people a lot more than most gay people do. And they also ruled that they couldn't opt out of something that's so basic to elementary school curriculum (learning that there are all different kinds of people in the world).