Thanks for your kind words.

BTW, this sentence — “Perhaps that’s why, after four years of same-sex marriage, there haven’t been any suits filed against churches there.” — should have said “after four years of same-sex marriage IN MASSACHUSETTS…”

One of the largest road blocks in the dialogue over marriage equality comes from the reality that most straight people don’t know many gay people – and even fewer know a gay person well. I can attest to this because all of my close friends are straight like me. As such, I appreciate hearing your side of the debate. I think your perspective adds some credence to a debate between two straight guys over the future of gay people.

Do you have a blog of your own? If so I’d like to add you to my blog roll.

Who the heck is Mistereks? I am a man of mystery!

But I do have a few non-mysterious responses to your most recent comment post.

First, I’m glad I was able to ease your mind about churches being forced to marry same-sex couples or losing their tax-exempt status.

You can also stop worrying about lawsuits. First, though anyone can sue, they have to convince a judge or jury that they have a case. And they have to pay an attorney to make that case for them. Who in their right minds is going to sue when you have language like that facing you, not to mention the First Amendment? Perhaps that’s why, after four years of same-sex marriage, there haven’t been any suits filed against churches there.

“I still object to the teaching of children about homosexuality at such a young age.”

I understand and sympathize. I think virtually all kindergarten teachers do, as well. Not to mention all school boards. Schools are community schools. We elect the school boards. We can go to their meetings. Our community schools are smart enough to present age-appropriate lessons.

I think “the legal and financial aspects of parenthood and marriage” (which is all the California Education Code calls for in terms of marriage-related curriculum) will be discussed when it is appropriate. Probably in high school.

But yes, same-sex marriage is going to be out in the open a bit more. Kids are more likely to come across it, and probably earlier than before. That was happening anyway, even without gay marriage. “Ellen” wins Emmys and brings in big ratings. “Will & Grace” was a hit. Gay people aren’t living our lives in the closet in the way we used to.

Kids will still get most of their information about what makes families from their own. From mom and dad.

However, there may be times when young children need to learn about same-sex couples at school. Maybe one of their classmates is being raised by a same-sex couple. So maybe, to help those kids to better understand something that is relatively unusual in their young lives, they might be read a book like “King & King.” There’s nothing in that book that is unlike any other fairy tale — except that the two characters who unexpectedly fall in love are both men. That is both its power AND what makes it frightening to people. It DOES communicate the idea that, “hey, it’s true — even though most princes go head over heels for princesses, every once in a while, a prince falls for another prince. It’s unusual, but it happens.” But that’s OK, I think. Because it’s true. And the story goes about it in a gentle way.

Anyway, I’ve gone on too long about that. I think I made my point. This is public education. If a creationist parent wants to shield their child from reference to the fossil record or discussions of evolution, they have the same rights of parents who don’t want their kids to hear homosexuality even hinted at in public schools. We don’t stop telling children the truth, even if some parents disagree with it.

“If the people of California want marriage to be between any two people, then it should be law. ”

Except the courts are there partly to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. When would interracial couples have won the right to marry if they had to wait for a majority to approve that right? 1977 instead of 1967? 1997? Would they have it yet?

“Personally, I believe smaller government is better.”

Me too!

“And so like I said, the state shouldn’t define marriage at all.”

But it does. So we ought to treat all couples equally.

“They may be able to define civil unions, and allow for different religious traditions to qualify for those civil unions, but marriage itself does not belong to the state, it descends from religion, and so it should have always been left to religion.”

But it wasn’t. So we ought to treat all couples equally.

“I personally am struggling over the idea of even voting, because I feel as though there are no positions that I agree with, only ones that I disagree with less.”

I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t think you’re alone. But I hope you WILL vote.

I am relieved to know there is protection for churches, and that does change my mind quite a bit. I still object to the teaching of children about homosexuality at such a young age. It should be the parents right to decide when and how to teach their kids about such a subject, and i doubt any parent of a 5 year old is even thinking about that subject for their children at such a young age.

Also, I firmly believe that the law should be whatever the people vote for. This year’s vote on gay marriage will be, i believe, the third time California has voted on this in the last 10 -15 years. If the people of California want marriage to be between any two people, then it should be law. However the problem here is that the law was not decided by the people, it was decided by the few appointed judges, and frankly that just pisses me off. I think our whole system is screwy when the few have so much control over the many.

Personally, I believe smaller government is better. And so like I said, the state shouldn’t define marriage at all. They may be able to define civil unions, and allow for different religious traditions to qualify for those civil unions, but marriage itself does not belong to the state, it descends from religion, and so it should have always been left to religion. I personally am struggling over the idea of even voting, because I feel as though there are no positions that I agree with, only ones that I disagree with less. That includes this Prop, others, and candidates, especially the presidential ones.

Lastly, who the heck is Mistereks?

I believe this clause (correct term?) offers protection for churches and pastors who object to same-sex marriage.

But if you read the May 15 Supreme Court decision, the justices say the EXACT OPPOSITE: “[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

We are talking about the definition of CIVIL marriage here. Churches will still be allowed to define marriage however they like.

Unfortunately though, they do teach what is morally acceptable. That is the problem that Christian parents have had in Massachusetts. And as for a five year old, how can they know the difference between what is legally OK, and what their parents are trying to teach them about morals? Such an issue should be decided upon by the parent as to how to go about teaching their children on it, not the public school system. Where teachers already use their classroom to spread their own political agendas both on the left and on the right.

As for gays having kids, surrogate parenting is a lot more common than you think. Heck, my teenage student has already done it. But yes, in reality this is really a mute issue in regards to overall world population. After all countries like Iran don’t even have gay people right?

“Parents have a right to control what worldviews their children are taught.”
-Yes, they do to an extent. If a child is enrolled in a public school, they’ll be taught was is legal in society – hopefully not which is “right or wrong” in the eyes of the church. That should be left to private schools. But teaching that marriages between same-sex couples exist and teaching that they are morally acceptable are two different things.

“Homosexual will not help control the population through lack of procreation, they do it all the time.”
-Well, I wouldn’t say they do it all the time. They do it. But only through surrogacy, not adoption. Adoption is taking a child that already lives and parenting it, not popping out your own kid. This is only anecdotal, but I have to believe as a percentage, there are far more gay couples without kids than than with kids. And even fewer were conceived than adopted. I think this is a sound argument. Now will gays’ lack of kids really help us when India and China make up 1/3 of the worlds population? No.